Full text of "History Of The Later Roman Empire Vol.ii"

See other formats

HISTOEY

LATEE

OF THE

EOMAN'EMPIEE

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited

LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA • MADRAS
MELBOURNE

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO
DALLAS * SAN FRANCISCO

THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA, Ltd.

TORONTO

HISTOEY

• OF THE

LATEE EOMAN EMPIEE

t. '

FROM THE DEATH OF THEODOSIUS 1.

TO THE DEATH OF JUSTINIAN

(A.D. 395 10 A.D. 565)

J. B. BURY

EEGinS PEOPESSOE OP MODERN HISTOKT, AND FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE
IN THE tJNlVBESITy OF CAMBEIDGE
HON. FELLOW OP ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD

MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN’S STREET, LONDON
1923

PEIKTED GBEAT BBITAIK

CONTENTS

VOL. II

Genealooigal Table OF THE House of Justin . . ix

CHAPTEE XIV

The Empiee and Persia . . . . . 1

§ 1. Eelations with Persia in the Fifth Ceiitnr}^ . , 1

§ 2. Persian War of Anastasius (a.d. 502-607) , . 10

CHAPTEE XV

Justin I. and Justinian I. . . , . . 16

§ 1. Election and Reign of Justin I. (a.d. 518-527) . 16

§ 2. Justinian . . . . . . 23

§ 3. Theodora . . . . . . 27

§ 4, John the Cappadocian, Praetorian Prefect of the East . 36

§ 5. The Xika Reyolt (a.d. 532) . . . . 39

§ 6. St. Soi3hia . , . . . . 48

§ 7 . The Fall of John the Cappadocian (a.d. 541) . . 55

§8. The Great Pestilence (a.d. 542-543) . . . 62

§ 9 . The Conspiracy of Artabanes (a.d. 548) . . 66

§ 10 . The Succession to the Throne . , . . 70

Appendix — A Scene in the Hippodrome . ; Vl'

CHAPTEE XVI

The 'Persian Wars: ^ .

., ; § 1 . The Roman Army . .../.■ .. '

§ 2, The First War. ^ . . .79

^ '

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

§ 3. The Second War (a.b. 540-546) . . . 89

§4. The Lazic War (A.D. 549-557) . . . 113

§5. Gonclnsion of Peace (a.d. 562) . . . 120 •

CHAPTER XVII ' ■

The Rbconquest op Africa ' . . . . 124

§ 1. The Conquest (a.d. 533-534) . . . . 124

§ 2. The Settlement and the Moorish Wars (a.d. 534-648) . 139

§ 3. The Fortification of the Provinces . . . 148

CHAPTER ' XYIII

The Pi-EcoNQUEST OF Italy.— L . . . ,161

§ 3. The Last Years of King Theoderic (died a.d. 626) . 151

§ 2. The Regency of Amalasuntha (A.D. 626-534) . . 159

§ 3. The Reign of Theodahad and Outbreak of Hostilities

(a, D.. 535-536) . . , . , , ' . ' . 168 .

§ 4 . Siege of X aples, and Accession of W itigis ,(a. D. 5 3 6) . 175
§ 6. Siege of Rome (a. D. 537-538) . . . . ISO

§ 6. Siege and Relief of Arimiiium (a.d. 638) . ,195

§7. Dissensions in the Imperial Army . . .199

§ 8. Siege and Massacre of Milan (a.d. 539) , . . 202

§ 9, Siege and Capture of Auximum (a.d. 539, June to

December) , . . . . . 205

§10. Fall of Ravenna (a.d. 640, spring) . . , 209

§ 11, Boethius, Cassiodorus, and Benedict . . . 216

Appendix — Routes from Italy to the East . . , 225

CHAPTER XIX

The Reconquest of Italy.— II. . . , , 226

§ 1. The Reigns of lldibad and Eraric (a.d. 540-641) , 226

§ 2. The First Successes of Totila (a.D. 541-543) . . 229

§ 3. Return of Belisarius to Italy (a.d. 544, summer) . 233

§ 4. Second Siege of Rome {a,d. 546) . , 236

§ 5. Reoccupation of Rome ; Siege of Rossano ; and Recall of

Belisarius (a.d. 547-549) . . . , 244

CONTENTS vii

'.PAGE

§ 6. TMrd Siege of Eome (a.I). 649) . . . 249

§ 7. Proposed Exj^edition of Germaniis (A.D. 649-560) . 252

> § 8. Totila in Sicily. Negotiations witli the Franks (a.d.

650-661) . . . . . . 256

§ 9. Battle of Sena Gallica (a,i>. 561) . , . 268

§ 10. Battle of Busta Galloriim and Death of Totila (a.d. 552) 261

§ 11. Battle of Mons Lactarius (a.d. 662) . . . 270

§ 12. The Franco- Alamamiic Invasion. Battle of Capua (a.d.

553-554) . .... .274

§13. The Settlement of Italy . . . . 281

§ 14. Conquests in Spain , . . . . 286

Appendix — The Battle op Busta Galloeum . . . 288

CHAPTER XX

Diplomacy and Commerce . . . . . 292

§ 1. The Slavs . . . . . . 293

§ 2. The Gepids and Lombards ; Kotrigurs and Utigiirs . 298

§ 3. Invasion of Zabergan (a.d. 558) . . . 304

§4. The Defences of the Balkan Peninsula . . . 308

§ 5. The Crimea . . . . . . 310

§ 6. The Avars . . . . . ,314

§ 7. Roman Commerce . . . . .316

§ 8. The Abyssinians and Himyarites . , . 322

§ 9. The Nobadae and Blemyes . . . .328

§ 10. The Silk Industry . . , . . 330

CHAPTER XXI

Justinian’s Administrative Reforms . . . . 334

§ 1. Attempts to reform Administrative Abuses . * 334

§2. Provincial Reorganisation . , . . 338

§3, Lapse of the Consulship (a.d. 542) . . , 346

§ 4. Financial Policy . . . . . 348

CHAPTER XXII

Ecclesiastical Policy , ■ . . , .. . , . , ■ ,360

§ 1. Ecclesiastical Legislation . , . . 360

. §;2, Persecution of Heretics .and. Samaritans . ■ 364.^

viii HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

PAGE

§ 3. Supi^ression of Paganism . . .366

§ 4. First Persecution of Monophysites, under Justin . 3*72

§ 5. Justinian’s Attempts at Conciliation, and tlie Second «
Persecution. . . . . ,375

§ 6. Origenistic Heresies in Palestine , . .380

§ 7, Controversy of the Three Chapters, and. the Fifth

Ecumenical Council (a.d. 553) , . • 383

§8. General Significance of Justinian’s Policy . , 391

CHAPTER XXIII

Justinian’s Legislative Work . . . , 395

§ 1. Codification . . . . , , .395

§ 2. Civil Law . . . . . . 400

§ 3. Criminal Law . . . . .409

CHAPTER XXIV

Procopius . . . . . . .417

Bibliography . . . . , . .437

Index ........ 455

MAPS

To ILLUSTRATE THE PERSIAN WaRS . . . .94

Battle op Ad Decimum . . . . .133

Umbria: to illustrate Battle op Busta Gallorum, a.d. 552 261

Germanus Postiiiniis,

CHAPTER XIV

THE EMPIBE AHB PEESIA

§ 1. Relations with Persia in the Fifth Century

The rulers of Constantiuople would liardly have steered their
section of the Empire with even such success as they achieved
through the dangers which beset it in the fifth century, had it
not been that from the reign of Arcadius to that of Anastasius
their peaceful relations with the Sassanid kings of Persia were
only twice interrupted by brief hostilities. The unusually long
duration of this period of peace, notwithstanding the fact that
the conditions in Armenia constantly supplied provocations or
pretexts for war, was in a great measure due to the occupation
of Persia with savage and dangerous enemies who threatened
her north-eastern frontier, the Ephthalites or White Huns, but
there was a contributory cause in the fact that the power of the
Sassanid kings at this time was steadily declining. It is signifi-
cant that when, at the end of the fifth century, a monarch arose
who was able to hold his own against the encroachments of the
Zoroastrian priesthood and the nobility, grave hostilities immedi-
ately ensued which were to last with few and mieasy intervals
for a hundred and thirty years.

At the accession of Arcadius, Varahran IV. was on the Persian
throne, but was succeeded in a.d. 399 by Yezdegerd I. The
policy of this sovran was favourable to his Christian subjects,
who had been allowed to recover from the violent persecution
wliich they had sufiered at the hands of Sapor, the conqueror
of Julian; and he was an object of veneration to Christian
historians,^ while the Magi and the chroniclers of his own kingdom

^ Compare e.j;. Socrates, yu, S ; GJiron. Edess, (ed. Guidi), p. 107. See
Le Clirktianisme dam V empire perse^ ^l-^S.

VOL. II 1

2 HISTORY OF THE LA TER ROMA N EMPIRE chap.

detested Ms name. After tte death of Arcadiiis there were
negotiations between the courts of Constantinople and Ctesiphon,
but it is difficult to discover precisely what occurred. Th^re
is a record, which can hardly fail to have some foundation,
that in his last illness Arcadius was fretted by the fear that the
Persians might take advantage of his son’s infancy to attack the
Empire, and that he drew up a testament in wMch he requested
the Great King to act as guardian of Ms son.^ There seems no
reason not to accept this statement, provided we do not press the
legal sense of guardian,^ and take the act of Arcadius to have
been simply a recommendation of Theodosius to the protection
and goodwill of Yezdegerd. The communication of tMs request
would naturally be entrusted to the embassy, which, according
to the traditional etiquette, announced the accession of a new
Emperor at the Persian court.^ Yezdegerd took the wish of
his brother” as a compliment and declared that the enemies
of Theodosius would have to deal with him.

Whatever be the truth about this record, which is not
mentioned by contemporary writers,^ there is no doubt that
there were transactions between the two governments at this
jmicture, and either a new treaty or some less formal arrange-
ment seems to have been concluded, bearing chiefly on the position
of Persian Christians and perhaps also on commerce. The
Imperial Government employed the good offices of Maruthas,
bishop of Martyropolis,^ who, partly on account of his medical

^Procopius, BP. i. 2; Theo- mider the giiardknsliip of the Giiagaii
phanes, a.m. 5900 (a notice evidently of the Avars. Kavad proposed that
drawn from the same source as that Justin I. should adopt his son
in Michael Syrus, viii. 1). Haury’s Chosi'oes (see below, p. 79).
view {Zur Beufteiluiig des Procop. 21) * ^ Procopius uses the word eTrirpoTrQs

that Arcadius appomted Yezdegerd {=:ttttor), Theophanes (a.m. 5900),
“ guardian ” in 402, when he crowned Kovpdrwfj.

Theodosius, cannot be aceeiDted. ® According to Sk^ditzcs (Cedrenus,
Agathias (iv. 26) expresses scepticism i. 586) Arcadius sent 1000 lbs. of
about this statement of Procopius, gold to Yezdegerd. This is not
and many modem writers (e.g. improbable j the embassy annouiioiag
Tillemont, Gibbon, Noldeke) have the Emperor’s decease would in aiiy
rejected it. (See P. Sauerbrei, Aom'gr case offer gifts,

Jazdegerd, der Simder, in Festschrift ^ Sauer brei (op. c.it.) seems to be
Albert V. Bamberg, Gotha, 1905; on right in his conclusion that the notice
the other hand, Haury, B.Z. xv. 291 in Theophanes is not taken from
sqq. Cp. Giiterbock, Byzanz und Procopius but from a common source.
Persien, 28.) But such a recom- If this is so, the record is not later
mendation of a child heir to a foreign than the fifth century. Skyiitzes
monarch is not without parallels, seems to have had access lo this
Heraclius, when he went forth against source or to an independent derival i’^T.
Persia, is said to have placed his son ® Socrates, loo. cit.

XIV'

THE EMPIRE AND PERSIA

knowledge, enjoyed mncli credit with Yezdegeid, to persuade tke
king to protect Ms Ckristian subjects. Ye^degerd inaugurated
a new policy, and for the next twelve years the Christians of
Persia possessed complete ecclesiastical freedom.^

It is possible that at the same time the commercial relations
between the two realms were under discussion. It was the
policy of both powers alike to restrict the interchange of mer-
chandise to a few places close to the frontier. Persian merchants
never came to Constantinople, Roman merchants never went
to Ctesiphon. The governments feared espionage under the
guise of trade, and everything was done to discourage free inter-
course between the two states. Before the treaty of Jovian,
Nisibis was the only Roman town in which Persian merchants
were allowed to trade.^ After the loss of Nisibis, Callinicum
seems to have become the Roman market for Persian merchandise,
but we hear nothing of the new arrangements imtil the year 408-
409, when an Imperial edict was issued for the direction of the
governors of the frontier provinces.^ From it we learn that the
two governments had agreed that the Persian towns of Nisibis
and Artaxata and the Imperial town of Callinicum should be
the only places to which Persian and Roman traders might
bring their wares and resort to transact business. Taken in
connection with the fact that the two governments had been
engaged in negotiations, tMs promulgation of the edict at tMs
time suggests that if a new compact regarding commercial
relations was not concluded, an old agreement, which may have
been laxly executed, was confirmed.^

^ The important Council of Seleucia
held in 410 was the immediate out-
come of the new situation. It is
stated in the Acts of this Council
that Yezdegerd ordained that the
churches destroyed by his predecessors
should be rebuilt, that all who had
been imprisoned for their faith should
be set at liberty, and the clergy should
be free to move about without fear,
Synodicon ori&ntalet ed. Chabot, p,
254. See Labourt, op. cit. 91 sqq.

- Peter Patric. fr. 3 (Leg, Mom,
p.4).

® G,J. iv. 63. 4. The motive of the
restriction of trade to certain places
is stated plainly : ne alieni regnij
quod non convenif, ocrutentur arcana.

Artaxata was subsequently replaced
by Bubios (Bovin) not far to the
north-east; ci>, Procopius, B.P. ii. 25.

Giiterbock (op. cil 74-75) refers
the agreement to the treaty of 387,
but why not to that of 363 ? The
words of the edict are ioca in quibus
foederis tempore cum memorata natione
nobis connenit Sozomen makes the
remarkable statement that the Per-
sians prepared for war at this j uncture ,
and then concluded a peace for 100
years (ix, 4 inlL). It is curious
that he should have confused the
peace of 422 with the transactions
of 408. Haury {loc. cit. p. 294)
suggests that there was actually a
movement in Byzantium against the
succession of Theodosius and that

HISTOEY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE: chap.

At tlie very end of Yezdegerd’s reign tlie friendly under-
standing was clouded. All miglit have gone well if the Christian
clergy had been content to be tolerated and to enjoy their
religious liberty. But they engaged in an active campaign of
proselytism and were so successful in converting Persians to
Christianity that the Idng became seriously alarmed.^ It was
perfectly natural that he should not have been disposed to allow
the Zoroastrian religion to be endangered by the propagation
of a hostile creed. It is quite certain that if there had been
fanatical Zoroastrians ^ in the Eoman Empire and they had
undertaken to convert Christians, the Christian government
would have stopped at nothing to avert the danger. Given
the ideas which then prevailed on the importance of State
religions, we cannot be surprised that Yezdegerd should have
permitted acts of persecution. Some of the Christians fled to
Roman territory. The Imperial government refused to surrender
them (a.d. 420) and prepared for the event of war.^ Yezdegerd
died at this juncture, and was succeeded by his son Varahran V.,
who was completely under the influence of the Zoroastrian priests,
and began a general persecution.^ Some outrages were com-
mitted on Roman merchants. The war which resulted lasted
for little more than a year, and the Roman armies were success-
ful.^ Then a treaty was negotiated by which peace was made

Yezdegerd threatened to intervene.
It may be observed that the appoint-
ment of the Persian eunuch Antiochus
to educate Theodosius had nothing to
do with Yezdegerd.

^ The incident Tvhich immediately
provoked the persecution was the
outrageous act of a priest who
destroyed a lire - temple near his
church. Theodoret, v, 3S ; Labourt,
ojp. cit 106 sq,

2 There were some old Zoroastrian
communities in Cappadocia — settlers
from Babylonia — in the time of the
Achaemenids, which still existed in the
fourth and fifth centuries (cp. Basil,
E'pp. 258-325) ; they W'ere known
as Magusaeans (Ma7ou<7a£oi). Strabo
notices then, xv. 3. 15 r'?? IvaTrTra-

botdq, (ttoXi!' yap end rh tQ)V (pdXov,

ot Kal Tviipaidoi KoXovvrac iroWk bk
Kal tQv llepcriKOiv Bmv Upd), ktX. See
Cumont, Les Mysteres cle MiiJira, ed. 3,
pp. II, 12.

® A constitution authorising the
inhabitants of the Eastern and Pontic
provinces to build walls round their
homes (May, 420) is interpreted as
a measure taken in view of impend-
ing invasion. G,J. viii. 10. 10. Cp.
Lebeau, v. p. 493.

^ Labourt, 110 sqq,

® The general Anlaburius operated
in Arzanene and gained a victory,
autumn 421, wiiich forced the Persians
to retreat to Kisilus, which Ardaluirius
then besieged. He raised the siege
on the arrival of an arfuy under
Varahran, wdio proceeded to attack
Eesaina. Meanwiiile tlie Saracens of
Hira, under Al-Mundhir, were sent
to invade Sj^ria, and W'ere defeated
by Vitianiis. During the })eaee
negotiations the Persians attacked
the Homans and were defeat«'d by
H^rocopius, son-in-law nf Aniheniius
(Socrates, vii 18, 20). The Empress
Eudneia celebrated the war in a poem
in heroic metre (/5. 21).

XIV

THE EMPIRE AND PERSIA^

for a limidred years (a.d. 422). Varatraii undertook to stay
tlie persecution; and it was agreed that neitker party should
ijeceive the Saracen subjects of the other.^

The attention of Varahran was soon occupied by the appear-
ance of new enemies beyond the Oxus, who for more than a
hundred years were constantly to distract Persian arms from
the Eoman frontier.^ The lands between the Oxus and Jaxartes
had for some centuries been in the hands of the Kushans. The
Kushans were now conquered {c, a.I). 425) by another Tartar
people, who were known to the Chinese as the Ye-tha, to Armenian
and Arabic writers as the Haithal, and to the Greeks as the
Ephthalites.^ The Greek historians sometimes classify them as
Huns, but add the qualification white,” which refers to their
fair complexion and distinguishes them from the true Huns
(Hiung-nu), ’who were dark and ugly.^ The Ephthalites belonged
in fact not to the Hiung-nu, but to a different Turanian race,
w^hich was known to the Chinese as the Hoa. Their appearance
on the Oxus marked a new epoch in the perennial warfare between
Iran and Turan. They soon built up a considerable emjiire
extending from the Caspian to the Indus, including Chorasmia,
Sogdiana, and part of north-western India.^ Their chief town
was Balkh, and Gurgan® (on the river of the same name which
flows into the Caspian) was their principal frontier fortress against
Persia. The first hostilities against the Ephthalites broke out
in A.B. 427 and resulted in a complete victory for Varahran.'^

The reign of Theodosius II. witnessed a second but less serious
disturbance of the peace, soon after the accession of Yezdegerd II.
(a.d. 438). The cause is uncertain. It has been conjectured,
without sufficient evidence, that the Persian king was in league

^ Malclius {fi\ 1 in De leg. gent p. GhrisL Top. xi. 11. Procopius states
568) refers this provision to the peace that their habits were not nomad,
concluding the greatest 'war ” in the ® Cosmas, l.c,
time of Theodosius. This obviously I^ Topyib/PxoGop.l.c.
means that of 422, not that of 442. The following is a chronological

- The best study of the history of list of the Perso-Ex^hthalite wars
the Eplithalites is the memoir of (Drouin, op. cit. p. 288) :

Ed. Drouin in Le Miiseoiiy xiv. (1895). A.i>. 427 war under Varahran.

See also A. Cunningham, Mphthalite „ 442-449 w^ar under Yezdegerd II,

or While Huns, in TransacUom ot „ 450-451 „ ,,

Xintli International Oriental Congress, « 454 „ „

London, 1892. „ 474-476 „ Perozes.

^ Theophylactus Siinocatta gives ,, 482-484 „ „

the alterucitive name of 'A^deXoi „ 485 %var in interregnum.

{Mist vii. 7. 8). ,, 503-513 ivar under Kavad.

^ See e.g. Proe. B.P. i. 3 ; Cosmas, ,, 556-557 „ Chosroes.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN chap.

with Attila arid Gaiseric for the destruction of the Empire.^
It is possible that Persian suspicions had been provoked by the
erection of a fortress at Erzerum in Eoman Armenia, on th^
Persarmenian frontier, w^hich was named Theodosiopolis.^ This
stronghold was to have a long history, reaching down to the
present day, as one of the principal eastern defences of Asia
Minort W motives may have instigated him to violate

the peace, Yezdegerd raided Eoman Armenia (a.d. 440).^
Menaced, how'ever, in his rear by an invasion of the Ephthalites he
was easily bought off by Anatolius, the Master of Soldiers in the
East, and Aspar. A new peace was then concluded (a. n. 442),
probably confirming the treaty of a.d. 422, with the additional
stipulations that neither party should build a fortress within
a, certain distance of the frontier, and that the Eomans should
(as had been agreed by the treaty of a.d. 363) contribute a
fixed sum to keep in repair the defences of the Caspian Gates
against the barbarians beyond the Caucasus. Caspian Gates ’’
is a misleading name ; for it was used to designate not, as one
would expect, passes at the eastern extremity of the range, but
passes in the centre, es|)ecially that of Dariel, north of Iberia.
These danger-points -were guarded by the Eomans so long as
they were overlords of Iberia, but now they abandoned Iberia
to Persian influence and were therefore no longer in a position
to keep garrisons in the mountain passes.^

The greater part of Yezdegerd’s reign was troubled by war
with the Ephthalites. He made energetic efforts to convert
Persian Armenia to the religion of Zoroaster, but the Armenians
were tenacious of their Christianity and offered steady resistance
to his armies. Since a.d. 428, when the last Arsacid king,
Ardashir, had been deposed by the Persian monarch at the

^ Giiidenpermiug, op. cit. 340. ^ The 3?ersia.ns builfe the furtresH

2 Moses of Ghorone relates its of Birapa-rach (’loiJpoeiTraax PriHcus,
foundation by Anatolius in his Hist. fr. 15^ I)e leg. 'gent..]i. 5S(i ; BipaTrapdx
Ann. iii. 59. As Book III. ends in John Lydiis, -De ma-i/. iii, 52) ]3robab]y
A.D. 433, this seems to be the lower in the pass of Dariel ; and the fortress
limit for the date. Procopius, Aed. Korytzon (Menander, fr. 3, He leg.
iii. 5, p. 255 (cp. p. 210), ascribes the Eo7n. p. ISO), which seems to be tile
foundation to Theodosius I. (and so Tzur of Procopius (B.G. iv. 3; De
Chapot, op. cit. p, 361); but his Boor conjectures xciipoc in

confusion between the two Emperors Menander), perhaps farther east. (p.
of that name is quite clear in iii. 1, P.-W. s.v. Biraparacth ; Ghapot,

P‘ ^19. ^ op. cil. p. 369. Sec also Pi’ceu^hus,

® And in Mesopotamia ho advanced B.P. i. 10. Procopius {ib. 2 ad jin.)
as far as Kisibis. See Elisha Vartabed, confounds the war of 420-422 with
llhHArm. c. 1, p. 184. that of 440-441.

XIV

■FEM.SIA^

request of tlie Armenians tlieinselves, tlie country Iiad been ruled
by Persian governors In a.d. 450 tte Armenians

sQ,nt a message to Constantinople imploring tbe Emperor to
rescue tbem and tlieir faith. Marcian, who had just come to
the throne and was threatened by Attila, was not in a position
to go to war with Persia for the sake of the Persarmenian
Christians. He determined to be neutra-h and Yezdegerd was
informed that he need fear no hostilities from the Empire.^
The war between the Armenians and their overlord continued
after the death of Yezdegerd (a.i>. 453) during the reign of
Eiruz (Perozes), under the leadership of Vahan the Mamigonian.

Eiriiz perished in a wm with the Ephthalites, whose king had
devised a cunning stratagem of covered ditches which were
fatal to the Persian cavalry (a.d. 484).^ Valakhesh (Balas),
perhaps his brother, followed him, and enjoyed a shorter but
more peaceable reign. He made a treaty with the enemy,
consenting to pay them a tribute for two years. He pacified
Armenia by granting unreserved toleration ; Vahan was ap-
pointed its governor ; and Christianity was reinstated. Vala-
khesh died in a.d. 488.

During this period — ^the reigns of Marcian, Leo, and Zeno —
there had been no hostilities between the two empires, but there
had been diplomatic incidents. About a.d. 464 Perozes had
demanded money from Leo for the defence of the Caucasian
passes, had complained of the reception of Persian refugees,
and of the persecution of the Zoroastrian communities which
still existed on Eoman territory.^ Leo sent an ambassador
who was received by the king, perhaps on the frontier of the
Ephthalites, and the matters seem to have been amicably
arranged.® Ten years later an incident occurred which illustrates

^ Cp. Lazarus, Hist Ann, c. 15, Lazarus conies domi to the accession
p. 272. Vramsiiapu had reigned of Valakhesh.

from H92 to 414, then Chosroes III. ® Procopius, B.F, i 4 ; Lazarus,

for a year, after whose death Yezde- op, cit c,

gcrd appointed his own son Sapor. See above, p, 4, n. 2.

in 422 Varahran agreed to the ^ Prisons, /K 15, De lef/. z/cwk p. 58G,

accession of Ardasliir, Vramshapu’s frs, 11, 12, i)e leg. Rom. It is difficult

son (Woses CUior. Hist. Arm. iii. c, 18). to 'reconcile the chronology with

- Elisha Vartabed, Hist. Arm. c. A what is otherwise known of the first
pp. 206-207; Lazarus, op. c/L c. 36, p. campaign of Perozes against the
298. A f ull and tedious account of Ephthalites, whom Priscus apparently
the wars in Armenia will be found means by the The Kida-

in these writers who were eontem- rites proper seem to have been Huns
porary. Elisha’s history ends in 446, who had settled in the trans-Caucasian

HISTORY OB chap.

the danger of the extension of Persian influence to the Ked Sea,
although the Persian Government was in this case in no way
responsitle.^ A Persian adventurer, Amorkesos, who" whether
because he •was not successful in Persia or for some other reason
preferred Eoman territory,’’ settled in the province of Arabia.
There he lived as a brigand, making raids, not on the Eomans
but on the Saracens. His power grew and he seized Jotaba,
one of the small islands in the mouth of the gulf of Akaba,
the eastern inlet formed by the promontory of Sinai. Jotaba
belonged to the Eomans and was a commercial station of some
importance. Driving out the Greek custom-house oflicers,
Amorkesos took possession of it and soon amassed a fortune
by collecting the dues. He made himself ruler of some other
places in the neighbourhood, and conceived the desire of becom-
ing a phylarch or satrap of the Saracens of Arabia Petraea, who
were nominally dependent on ' the Koman Emperor. He sent
an ecclesiastic to Leo to negotiate the matter, and Leo graciously
signified his wish to have a personal interview with Amorkesos.
When the Persian arrived, he shared the Imperial table, was
admitted to assemblies of the Senate, and even honoured with
precedence over the patricians. The Byzantines, it appears,
were scandalised that these privileges should be accorded to a
fire-W'Orshipper, and Leo seems to have been obliged to pretend
that his guest intended to become a Christian. On his departure
Leo gave him a valuable picture, and compelled the members
of the Senate to present him with gifts ; and, w^hat was more
important, he transferred to him the possession of Jotaba, and
added more villages to those w^hich he already governed, grant-
ing him also the coveted title of phylarch.^ Jotaba, how^ever,
was not permanently lost. The Imperial authority there -^vas
re-established in the reign of Anastasius.^

country and threatened the pass of once independent, according to Pro-
Dariel, and they are meant in another copius, J5.P. i. 19. 4.
passage of Pri3cus(/r. 22, De Zey, ^ Leo was criticised for inviting

where Perozes announces to Leo Amorkesos to his court, and for
that he has defeated them, c. a.d. 468. permitting the foreigner to see the
For the Kidarites, and this assumed towns through which he had to travel,
confusion, see Drouin, op. cit. 143-144. unarmed and defenceless. Malehus,
^ The source is Maichus, />. 1 , De ib.
leg. gent. p. 568. Cp. Khvostov, ® In a.d. 498 by Romaniis (see
1st. vost. torgovli Mgipta, i. p. 199. above, Chap. XIIL § 1, p. 432). Theo-
Jotaha has been identified with phanes, a.m. 5990. It wns arranged
Strabo’s Dia (xvi. 4. 18), now Tiran, that Koman traders should live in the
It was inhabited by a colony of Jews, island. Op. Proc(jpius, ib.

XIV

THE EMPIRE AND PEESM

Valakliesli was succeeded on the Persian throne by Kavad,
the son of Perozes. Kavad was in some ways the ablest of all
the Sassanid sovrans. His great achievement was to restore
the royal power, which had been gradually declining since the
end of the fourth century, and was now well on its way towards
the destiny which two hundred years later was to overtake the
Merovingian kings of France. The kings had failed to retain
their own authority over the Magian priesthood and the official
or bureaucratic nobility, and the state was really managed by
the principal minister whose title was wazurg-frmnadhar^ and
whose functions may be compared to those of a Praetorian
Prefect.^ It was one of these ministers to whom Kavad owed
his elevation.

Kavad might not have found it easy to emancipate the throne
from the tutelage to which it had so long submitted, if there
had not been a remarkable popular movement at the time of
which he boldly took advantage.^ A communist had arisen in
the person of Mazdak, and was preaching successfully among
the lower classes throughout Persia the doctrines that all men
are equal, that the present state of society is contrary to nature,
and that the acts condemned by society as crimes are, as merely
tending to overthrow an unjustifiable institution, blameless.
Community of property and wives was another deduction.
Kavad embraced and actually helped to promulgate these
anarchical doctrines. His conversion to Mazdakism was not,
of course, sincere * his policy was to use the movement as a
counterpoise to the power of the nobles and the Zoroastrian
priests. There was a struggle for some years of which we do not
know the details, but at length the nobles managed to immure
the dangerous king in the Castle of Lethe ” (a.d, 497).^
Mazdak was imprisoned, but forcibly released by his disciples.
After a confinement of two or three years Kavad found means
to escape, and with the help of the EphthaMtes was reinstated on
the throne (a.d. 499).

^ See Stem's important study of 141 AgatMas, iv. 27; Procopius,
the reforms of Kavad and Chosroes, BP, i. 5. The Mazdakitcs are
Ein Kapltel vom fersisclien und vom designated as Manichaeans in John
hyza nti n i'sche. n Staate {Byz,-nmgr. Jalir- MaL sviii. p. 444, and the fuller
huchei'y i, 1920) p. 57. account of Theophanes, a.m. 6016.

Both these notices are derived from

“ See Rawlinson, op. cU. 342 sqq. ; Timotheus, a baptized Persian.
Koldeke, Tabari, 455 sqq, €p. Tabari, in Susiana.

'EISTO'RY' of the later ROMAN: EMPIRE chap.

During liis reign Kavad began a number of reforms in the
organisation of the state which tended to establish and secure
the royal authority. He did not do away with the high office
of wazurg~frcmadJim% but he deprived it of its functions and it
became little more than a honorific title.^ He began a ne'W
survey of the land, for the purpose of instituting a system of
sound finance.^ Towards the end of his reign his position wm
so strong that he was able to take measures to suppress the
anti-social Mazdakite sect, which he had suffered only because
the hostility bet’iveen these enthusiasts and the nobles and priests
helped him to secure and consolidate the royal power.

§ 2. The Persian War of Anastasias (a.o. 502-507)

It was some time after the restoration of Kavad that hostilities
broke out, after sixty years of peace between Persia and the
Empire. In their financial embarrassments the Sassanid kings
were accustomed to appty to Constantinople, and to receive
payments which w’-ere nominally the bargained contribution to
the defence of the Caucasian passes. The Emperors Leo and
Zeno had extricated Perozes from difficulties by such payments.^
But in A.D. 4-83 the Persians repudiated a treaty obligation.
It had been agreed by the treaty of Jovian that Persia was to
retain Msibis for 120 years and then restore it to the Romans.
This period now terminated and the Persians declined to sur-
render a fortress which w^as essential to their position in Meso-
potamia. The Emperor Zeno did not go to w^ar, but he refused
to make any further payments for the defence of the Caucasus.
When king Valakhesh applied to him he said : You have the
taxes of Nisibis, which are due rightfully to us.” ^ The Imperial
Government cannot have seriously expected Persia to fulfil her
obhgation in regard to Nisibis, but her refusal to do so gave the
Romans the legal right to decline to carry out their contract
to supply money. Anastasius followed the policy of Zeno when
Kavad renewed the demand with menaces in a.d. 491.^

See Stein {ib. p. 65), wlio suggests is in Joshua StjL e. 59 (a.d. 502) ; see
with much probability (p. 52) that the also Proeopiuspi^.in i. il. 25.
institution of the astabedh, a minister ^ Tabari, p. 241.

whose functions are compared by y Joshua Styi. p. 7.

Greek and Syrian writers to those of ^ lb, pp. 7, 12.

the magister officionun, was due to ^ lb. p. 13. “ As Zeno did not

Kavad. The first mention of this official send, so neither will I, until thou

XIV PiTi^SJ^iV WAR OF ANASTASIUS 11

After Ms restoration Kavad was in great straits for money.
He owed tlie Ephtlialites a large sum wMcli lie had undertaken
to, pay them for their services in restoring him to the throne,
and he applied to Anastasiiis. The Emperor had no intention
of helping him, as it appeared to be manifestly to the interest
of the Empire to promote hostility and not friendship between
the Ephthalites and the Persians. It is said that his refusal
took the form of a demand for a written acknowledgment (cautio),
as he knew that Kavad, unfamiliar with the usages of Roman
law, would regard such a mercantile transaction as undignified
and intolerable.^ Kavad resolved on wnr, and the Hundred
Years’ Peace was broken, not for the first time, after a duration
of eighty years (August, a.d. 502).^

The Persian monarch began operations with an invasion of
Armenia, and Theodosiopolis fell into his hands by treachery.
Then he inarched southwards, attacked Martyropolis wdiich
surrendered, and laid siege to Amida. This city, after a long
and laborious winter siege beginning in October, was surprised
in January (a.d. 503), chiefly through the negligence of some
monks who had undertaken to guard one of the towers, and having
drunk too much wune slumbered instead of watcMng.^ There
was a hideous massacre which was stayed by the persuasions
of a priest, the survivors were led away captive, and Amida
was left with a garrison of 3000 men.^

On the first new’^s of the invasion the Emperor had sent
Eufinus as an ambassador to ofier money and propose terms
of peace.^ Kavad detained him till Amida fell, and then

restorest to me Msibis.” ICavad Beurteilung des Froc, 2Z),
applied again during the Isaurian ^ The siege of Amida is described
\1hrr, and Anastasius ofiered to send by Joshua Styl. ec. 1. liii. ; Zacharias
him money as a loan, but not as a Myt. vii. 3 ; Procopius, B.P. 1. 7.
matter of custom {ib, p. 15). Eustathius of Epiphania described it

^ Procopius, B.F, i. 7 ; Theodoras in Ms lost Mstory (Evagrius, iii. 37),
.Lector, ii. 52; Theophanes, sub am, and may have been the source of
5996. John Lydus {De mag. iii, 52) both Procopius and Zacharias ; if not,
attributes the war to a demand for Procopius must have used Zacharias
the costs of maintaining the castle of (cp, Haiiry, Froleg. to his ed. of
Biraparach, and doubtless the ques- Procopius, I3p. 19-20). The stories
tion of tlie Caucasian defences was in the three sources are carefully
montioned in the negotiations. Kavad compared by Merten, De hello Persico,
refers to the demand for money in 164

his letter to J ustinian quoted by ® During the siege of Amida,
John Mai. xviii. j). 450. Roman Alesopotamia was invaded

“ Joshua Styl. 1 ). 37. and plundered by the Saracens of

^ But whether the monks were Hira under Kaman (Joshua Styl. p.
to blame is doubtful (Haury, ZWsgq).

12 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

despatched him to Constantinople with the news. Aiiastasiiis
made military preparations, but the forces which he sent were
perhaps not more than 15,000 men.^ And, influenced by tlie
traditions of the Isaurian campaigns, he committed the error
of dividing the command, in the same theatre of war, among
three generals. These were the Master of Soldiers in the East,
Areobindus, great-grandson of Aspar (on the mother’s side) and
son-in-law of the Emperor Olybrius ; and the two Masters of
Soldiers in fmeBenti, Patricius, and the Emperor’s nephew
Hypatius, whose military inexperience did not deserve such a
responsible post.2

The campaign opened (May, a.d. 503) with a success for
Areobindus, in the neighbourhood of Nisibis, but the enemy
soon mustered superior forces and compelled him to withdraw
to Constantia. The jealousy of Hypatius and Patricius, who
with 40,000 men had encamped ^ against Amida, induced them
to keep back the support which they ought to have sent to their
colleague. Soon afterwards the Persians fell upon them, their
vanguard was cut up, and they fled with the rest of their army
across the Euphrates to Samosata (August).^

Areobindus meanwhile had shut himself up in Edessa, and
Kavad determined to attack it. The Christian legend of Edessa
was in itself a certain challenge to the Persian kings. It w^as
related that Abgar, prince of Edessa and friend of the Emperor
Augustus, suffered in his old age from severe attacks of gout.
Hearing of the miraculous cures which Jesus Christ was perform-
ing in Palestine, Abgar wrote to him, inviting him to leave a
land of unbelievers and spend the rest of his life at Edessa.
Jesus declined, but promised the prince recovery from his disease.

^ So Marcellinus, siih a. Joshua
Styl gives 40,000 men to Patricius and
Hypatius and 12,000 to Areobindus.

2 Priscian’s Panegyric on x4nastasius
may perhaps be dated to this 3 ?'ear. For
he says of Hypatius quern vidit validtm
Parthus seymtque timendum (p. 300)
and does not otherwise mention the,
war. Among the subordinate com-
manders -were Justin (the future
Empei’or) ; Patriciolus and his son
Vitalian ; Romanus. Areobindus was
Consul in 506, and his consular
diptych is preserved at Zurich, with
the inscription Fi(avms) Areob(indus)
Dagal(aiphus) Areobindus, V, I., Ex

G. Sac(ri) Sta(buli) et M( agister)
M(ilitum) P(Gr) Or{ientcm) Ex
C(onsule) CXoiisul) ()r(dinadus). 8ee
C.I.L. xiii. 5245; Me 3 ’'er, Zwei auL
Elfenb, p. 65.

® At Siphrios, 9 miles from Amida.

^ John Lydiis {Be )nag, iii. 53)
attributes the ill-success of the
Romans to the iiieomj>etence of the
generals, Areobindus, ^y^io wa-s de-
voted to dancing and iniisie, Patricius
and Hj^patius, who were cowaadly
and inexperienced. This seems borne
out bjJ' the narratives of Procopius
and Joshua. Gp. Hauiy, Zur BeiirL
des Proc. 24-25.

XIV PERSIAN WAR OF ANASTASIUS 13

Tlie divine letter existed, and the Edessenes afterwards dis-
covered a postscript, containing a pledge that their city would
nwei be taken by an enemy. The text of the precious document
was inscribed on one of the gates, as a sort of phylactery, and
the inhabitants put implicit confidence in the sacred promised
It is said, that the Saracen sheikh Naman urged on Kavad
against Edessa, and threatened to do there worse things than
had been done at Amida. Thereupon a wound which he had
received in his head swelled, and he lingered in pain for two
days and diedd But notwithstanding this sign Kavad persisted
in his evil intention.

Constantia lay in Ms route, and almost fell into his hands.
Here we have a signal example of a secret danger which con-
stantly threatened Roman rule in the Eastern provinces, the
disaffection of the Jews. The Jews of Constantia had conspired
to deliver the city to the enemy, but the plot was discovered,
and the enraged Greeks killed all the Jews they could find.
Disappointed of his hope to surprise the fortress, Kavad did
not stay to attack it, but moved on to Edessa. He blockaded
this city for a few days without success (September 17), and
Areobindus sent him a message: ‘‘Now thou seest that the
city is not thine, nor of Anastasius, but it is the city of Christ
who blessed it, and it has withstood thy hosts.’' ® But he deemed
it prudent to induce the Persians to withdraw by agreeing to
pay 2000 lbs. of gold at the end of twelve days and giving them
hostages. Kavad withdrew, but demanded part of the payment
before the appointed day. When tMs was refused he returned
and renowned the blockade (September 24), but soon abandoned
the enterprise in despair; , ■

The operations of the following year w^ere advantageous to
the Empire. The evils of a divided command had been realised,
Hypatiiis w\as recalled, and Celer, the Master of Offices, an
Illyrian, was invested with the supreme command.^ He invaded
and devastated Arzanene : Areobindus invaded Persian Armenia ;

^ Procopius, B.P. ii. 12,

“ Joshua StyL p. 47.

This idea recurs in Procopius,
who descrihes {B.F. ii, 2(i ad iriit,)
the ]!^Icsn]-)otamiau campaign of Ohos-
rt>es, in ’^vhich he besieged Edessa, as
warfare “nob with Justinian nor

with any other man, but with the
Ood of tlie Christians.”

^ I infer the superior authority
of Celer from J oshua Styi. p. 55. He
had arrived, early in 504, with a
reinforcement of 2000 according to
Marceliinus, but with a very large
army according to Joshua.

14 HISTORY OF THE L^TER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Patricius undertook tEe recovery of Amida. The siege of this
place lasted tErougEout tke winter till tEe following year (a.d.
505). TEe garrison, reduced to tEe utmost straits by famine,
finally surrendered on favourable terms. TEe sufierings of tEe
inhabitants are illustrated by tEe unpleasant story tEat women

used to go forth by stealth into the streets of the city in the
evening or in the morning, and whomsoever they met, woman
or child or man, for whom they were a match, they used to carry
him by force into a house and kill and eat him either boiled or
roasted.’’ When this practice was betrayed by the smell of
the roasting, the general put some of the women to death, but
he gave leave to eat the dead.^

The Romans paid the Persians 1000 lbs. of gold for the sur-
render of Amida. Meanwhile Kavad was at war with the
Ephthalites, and he entered into negotiations with Celer, which
ended in the conclusion of a truce for seven years (a.d. 505).^ It
appears that the truce was not renewed at the end of that period,
but the two empires remained actually at peace for more than
twenty years.

It has been justly observed that in these oriental wars the
Roman armies would hardly have held their own, but for the
devoted loyalty and energy of the civil population of the frontier
provinces. It was through their heroic co-operation and patience
of hunger that small besieged garrisons were able to hold out.
Their labours are written in the remains of the stone fortresses
in these regions.*^ And they had to suffer sorely in time of war,
not only from the enemy, but from their defenders. The govern-
ment did what it could by remitting taxes ; but the ill-usage
which they experienced from the foreign, especially the German,
mercenaries in the Imperial armies was enough to drive them
into the arms of the Persians. Here is the vivid description
of their sufferings by one of themselves.

“ Those who came to our aid under the name of deliverers
plundered us almost as much as our enemies. Many poor people
they turned out of their beds and slept in them, whilst their
owners lay on the ground in cold weather. Others they drove
out of their omi houses, and went in and dwelt in them. The

^ Joshua Styl. p. 62. Gp. Pro- to such stfraits.
copius, B.P. i. 9. p. 44, from which ^ 2b. p. 45. John Lydiis, loc. cif
it would appear that it was the few ^ Chapot, op. cU. p. 370.

Roman inhabitants who were reduced ^ Joshua Styl. j). 08. Cp. ],>p. 71-73.

XIV PERSIAN WAR OF ANASTASIUS 15

cattle of some they carried off by force as if it were spoil of war ;
the clotlies of others they stripped off their persons and took
a\vay* Some they beat violently for a mere trifle ; with others
they quarrelled in the streets and reviled them for a small cause.
They openly plundered every one’s little stock of provisions,
and the stores that isome had laid up in the villages and cities.
Before the eyes of every one they ill-used the women in the streets
and houses. From old women, widow^s, and poor they took
oil, wood, salt, and other things for their own expenses, and they
kept them from their own work to wait upon them. In short
they harassed every one both great and small. Even the nobles
of the land, who were set to keep them in order and to give them'
their billets, stretched out their hands for bribes ; and as they
took them from every one they spared nobody, but after a few
days sent other soldiers to those upon whom they had quartered
them in the first instance.”

This war taught the Eomans the existence of a capital defect
in their Mesopotamian frontier. While the Persians had the
strong fort of Nisibis against an advance to the Tigris, the
Eomans had no such defence on their own frontier commanding
the high road to Constantia. After the conclusion of the treaty,
Anastasius immediately prepared to remedy this weakness. At
Daras, close to the frontier and a few miles from Nisibis, he built
an imposing fortified town, provided with corn-magazines,
cisterns, and twn public baths. He named it Anastasiopolis,
and it w^as for the Empire what Nisibis was for Persia. Masons
and workmen gathered from all Syria to complete the -work
while Kavad w^as still occupied by his Ephthalite war. He
protested, for the building of a fort on the frontier was a breach
of treaty engagements, but he was not in a position to do more
than protest and he was persuaded to acquiesce by the diplomacy
and bribes of the Emperor, who at the same time took the
opportunity of strengthening the walls of Theodosopolis.^

^Procopius,, B.P, ii. 10; JosKua XVL § 3, in connection with the siege
StyL p. 70. The fortifications of of Chosroes.

Paras will be described below. Chap.

CHAPTER XV

JUSTIN I. AND JUSTINIAN I.

§ 1. Election and Reign of Justin L (a,d. 618“”527)

Anastasius liad made no provision for a successor to the throne,
and there was no Augusta to influence the election. Everything
turned out in a way that no one could have foreseen. TJie
most natural solution might have seemed to be the choice of
one of the late Emperor’s three nephews, Probus, Poiiipeiiis, or
Hypatius. They were men of average ability, and one of them,
at least, Pompeius, did not share liis uncle’s sympathy with the
Monophysitic creed. But they were not ambitious, and perhaps
their claims were not seriously urged.^

The High Chamberlain Amantius hoped to play the part which
Urbicius had played on the death of Zeno, and he attempted to
secure the throne for a certain Theocritus, otherwise unknown,
who had probably no qualification but personal devotion to
himself. As the attitude of the Palace guards would probably
decide the election, he gave money to Justin, the Count of the
Excubitors, to bribe the troops.^

In the morning (July 9) the people assembled in the Hippo-
drome and acclaimed the Senate. Long live the Senate !
Senate of the Romans, tu vincas ! We demand our E,jn])eror,
given by God, for the army; we demand our Emperor, given
by God, for the world ! The high ofiicials, the senators, and

It is said, indeed, that there were Fasek, snb a, ; Cramw', E.trerpta^
many who wished that one of them ii. 31S) ; Marcel jiniis, J 19. I’hco-
should succeed (Evagrins, 4. 2). critus, described by Mureellinus as
Anastasius had otlier relatives too Amantii satelle^, is designated as
who were eligible (•'numerous and 6 SofxecrTLKm in o*ohn Uui. Jr. 43,
very distinguished/’ Procopius, J5.P. Be his, ]>, 170. it n a ‘ails ihe-

t 11)- “domestic” of Amantius, see Zaeh.

^ John Mai. xvii, 410 (cp. Chr, Myt. ix, 1.

CHAP. XV

TEE REIGN OF JUSTIN I

the Patriarch had gathered in the Palace, clad most of them
in mouse-coloured garments, and sat in the great hall, the
TriMinos of the Nineteen Akkuhita. Celer, the Master of
OfEces, urged them to decide quickly on a name and to act
promptly before others (the army or the people) could -^vrest the
initiative from their hands. But they were unable to agree,
and in the meantime the Excubitors and the Scholarians were
acting in the Hippodrome. The Excubitors proclaimed John,
a tribune and a friend of Justin, and raised him on a shield. But
the Blues would not have him ; they threw stones and some of
them w^ere Idlled by the Excubitors. Then the Scholarians
put forward an unnamed patrician and Master of Soldiers, but
the Excubitors would not accept him and he was in danger of
his life. He was rescued by the efforts of Justin’s nephew, the
candidatus Justinian. The Excubitors then wished to proclaim
Justinian himself, but he refused to accept the diadem. As
each of these persons was proposed, their advocates knocked
at the Ivory Gate, which communicated between the Palace
and the Hippodrome, and called upon the chamberlains to deliver
the Imperial robes. But on the announcement of the name, the
chamberlains refused.

At length, the Senate ended their deliberations by the election
of Justin, and constrained him to accept the purple. He appeared
in the Kathisma of the Hippodrome and was favourably received
by the people ; the Scholarians alone, jealous of the Excubitors,
resented the choice. The coronation rite was immediately
performed in the Kathisma. Arrayed in the Imperial robes,
which the chamberlains at last delivered, he was crowned by
the Patriarch John; he took the lance and shield, and was
acclaimed Basileus by the assembly. To the troops he promised
a donation of five nomismata (£3 : 7 : 6) and one pound of silver
for each man.

Such is the official description of the circumstances of the
election of Justin.^ If it is true so far as it goes, it is easy to see
that there was much behind that has been suppressed. The
intrigue of Amantiiis is ignored. Not a word is said of the
candidature of Theocritus which Justin had undertaken to
support. If Justin had really used his influence with the

^ Preserved in Constantine Porph. Oer, j. 93 (taken from tlie Katastasis
of Peter the Patrician).

18 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Exciibitors and the money which had been entrusted to him
in the interest of Theocritus, it is hardly credible that the name
of Theocritus would not have been proposed in the Hippodroaie.
If, on the other hand, he had worked in his own interest, as was
naturally alleged after the event,^ how was it that other names,
but not his, were put forward by the Excubitors ? The data
seem to point to the conclusion that the whole mise en scene was
elaborately planned by Justin and his friends. They knew
that he could not count on the support of the Scholarians, and,
if he were proclaimed by his own troops alone, the success of
his cause would be doubtful. The problem therefore was to
manage that the initiation should proceed from the Senate,
whose authority, supported by the Exciibitors, would rally
general consent and overpow^er the resistance of the Scholarian
guards. It was therefore arranged that the Excubitors should
propose candidates who had no chance of being chosen, with
the design of working on the fears of the Senate. Justin’s
friends in the Senate could argue with force : Hasten to agree,
or you will be forestalled, and some wholly unsuitable person
will be thrust upon us. But you must choose one who will be
acceptable to the Excubitors. Justin fulfils this condition. He
may not be an ideal candidate for the throne, but he is old and
moderate.” But, however the affair may have been managed
by the wirepullers, Justin ascended the tlirone with the prestige
of having been regularly nominated by the Senate, and he could
announce to the Pope that We have been elected to the Empire
by the favour of the indivisible Trinity, by the^ choice of the
highest ministers of the sacred Palace, and of the Senate, and
finally by the election of the army.” ^

The new Emperor, who wms about sixty-six years of age,
was an Illyrian peasant. He -was born in the village of Bedeiiana
in the province of Dardania, not far from Sciipi, of which the
name survives in the town of Usktib, and his native language was
Latin.^ Like hundreds of other country youths,^ he set forth

^ EYagrius, loc, ciL : Zach. Mjt. wMch he renamed Justmiaiia Prmia,
loc. cU. pairia nos tm {Nov. 11). On the

^ Coll AveUana, R'jj, 14,1, identification, see Evans, Arch. 7?c-

® Born in 452, if lie was 75 at his searches^ ii. 141 sqq.

death (John Mai xvii 424 ; hut ^ ^ ^ Op. iii the address of Gonnanus

77 acc, to Ghr, Pasch.). Bederianais to liis soldiers, in Procopius, B.V. ii.

represented hy the modern visage 16 dypov ijKoi'Tas tjv re rri

of Bader. Justinian speaks of Scupi, ml x^rwvicrKCf ipL

THE REIGN OF JUSTIN I

with a bag of bread on his back and walked to CoiLstaiitinople
to better his fortime by enlisting in the army. Two friends
aecompanied him, and all three,, recommended by their, physical
qualities, were ..enrolled in the Palace guards.^ Justin served
in the Isaiiriaimnd Persian wars of Anastasias, rose to be Count
of the Excubitors, distinguished himself in the repulse oi Vitalian,
and received senatorial ranlr.^ He had no qualifications for the
government of a province, not to say of an Empire ; for he had
no knowledge except of military matters, and he was uneducated.^
It is even said that he could not write and was obliged, like
Theoderic the Ostrogoth, to use a mechanical device for signing
documents.

He had married a captive whom he had purchased and who
was at first his concubine. Her name was Lupicina, but she was
crowned Augusta under the more decorous name of Euphemia.^
In his successful career the peasant of Bederiana had not for-
gotten his humble relatives or his native place. His sister,
wife of Sabbatius, lived at the neighbouring village of Tauresium ®
and had two children, Petrus Sabbatius and Vigilantia. He
adopted his elder nephew, brought him to Constantinople, and
took care that he enjoyed the advantages of an excellent educa-
tion. The young man discarded the un-Eomaii names of Peter
and Sabbatius ^ and was known by the adoptive name of
Justinianus. He was enrolled among the candidati. Justin
had other nephews and seems to have cared also for their
fortunes. They uvere liberally educated and were destined to

> Procopius, II. A, vi. John Mai.
(xvii. 410) describes Justin as good-
iooking, with a -well-formed nose,
and curly grey hair.

® lb. ; John Ant. De ins., fr. 100
(p. 142) ; Theodoras Lector, ii. 37.

® John Lydus, Dc 7nag. hi. 51, Pro-
coi)ius, John Mai. ib. dypd/j.jiiaTos.

^ Victor Tonn. s. a. 518 ; Theodore
Lector, ii. 37, cp. Cramer, Anecd.
Tar. ii, 108; Procopius, i7. A. vi., ix.
On a coin supposed to represent
Euphemia, see Wroth, Imp. Byzan-
tine Coins, i. p. xiv, 71 . 4, There
are miniature representations of
Justin and Euphemia on the two
extremities of the horizontal bar of a
silver cross preserved in the Treasury
of St. PeteEs at Borne. The cross

bears the inscription :

ligno quo Christus Iiiunanuiu subdidit
hostem

dat E-omae Jiistinus opem et socia
decorem.

From the style of the headcap of the
Empress, Deibriick (Portrdts byz.
Kais.) w?LS able to infer that Justin I.
and Euphemia (not Justin II. and
Sophia) are in question.

® Now Taor. Justinian built a
rectangular ■wail round it, -with a
tow'-er at each corner, and called it
Tetrapyrgia. Procopius, Aed. iv. 1.
18.

® His name, how’ever, appeared in
full on his consular diptyclis of 521.
aj,L, V. 8210. 3 : Fi. Petr. Sabbat,
lustinian., v.i., com(es), mag. eqq.
et p. praes,, et e(onsui) o(r)d.

20 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

play parts of varying distinction and importance on tlie political
scene.^

The first care of Justin was to remove the disaffected ;
Amantiiis and Theocritus were executed, and three others were
punished by death or exile.^ His next was to call to Con-
stantinople the influential leader who had shaken the throne
of Anastasius. Before he came to the city, Vitalian must have
been assured of the religious orthodoxy of the new Emperor,
and he came prepared to take part in the reconciliation of Rome
with the Eastern Churches. He was immediately created Master
of Soldiers in fraeseMi,^ and in a.b. 620 he was consul for the
year. The throne of Justin seemed to be firmly established.
The relatives of Anastasius were loyal ; Pompeiiis co-operated
with Justinian and Vitalian in the restoration of ecclesiastical
unity. Marinus, the trusted counseller of the late sovran, was
Praetorian Prefect of the East in A.D. 619.^

The reunion with Rome, which involved the abandonment
of the Henotikon of Zeno, the restoration of the prestige of the
Council of Chalcedon, and the persecution of the Monophysites,
was the great inaugural act of the new dynasty.^ The Emperor’s
nephew, Justinian, was deeply interested in theological
questions, and was active in bringing about the ecclesiastical

^ Vigiiantia, who married Dulcis-
simus, had three children, Justin
(afterwards Emperor), Mareellus, and
Pracjecta. A brother of Justin, or
another sister, liad three sons,
Germanus, Boraides. and Justus (cp.
Procopius, B,P, i. 24. 53 ; B,G. hi.
31. 12). Germanus, wlio was to
play a considerable part, was thus
the cousin of Justinian. He married
(1) Passara, by whom he had two
sons, Justin and Justinian, and one
daughter Justina ; (2) the Ostro-

gothic princess Matasuntha, by whom
he had one son Germanus. See the
Genealogical Table. Another cousin
of Justinian, named Mardan, is
mentioned by John Mai alas, xviii.
49G. I conjecture that he may be
identical with Justin, son of Germanus.
For this Justin was consul in 540, and
on his consular diptych his name
runs : FI Mar. Petr. Theodor. Valent.
Rust. Boraid. Germ. lust. (Meyer,
Zwei ant. Elf, p. 10). I take Mar.
to be for Maroiaims. Germanus was
the dv€\pL6s of Justinian (Proc. locc.

citt.), and this lias generally been taken
to mean nephew, so that Justinian
would have had a brother or a second
sister. But I agree vitli Ivallen-
berg {Berl. phil. WochenscJinj'f, xxxv.
991) that in B.G. iv. 40. 5 loPtrrh'o?
0 Vepjiiavov deTos should be retained
(all the editions print the emendation
^loii(TTLinap6s),

2 Mareeliinus, s.a, 519, Procopius,
H,A, 6 ; John Mai. xvii. 410, and Jr.
43, He ins. Mareeliinus describes
Amantius as a ]\Ianichcan ; Procopius
says that there was no charge against
him, except of using insulting language
about the Patriarch ; ]\laialas sjieaks
of a demonstration against Amantius
and Marinus in St. Sophia.

® John Mai. ib. 411.

4 C.J, V. 27. 7 ; ii. 7. 25. John
Mai ib. records that Ajipion, \rho had
been exiled by Anastasius, was recalled
and made ib*. p.r. Or. Perha})s ho
held the post in 51S-519 and was
succeeded by Marinus.

s See below, Chap. MXII. § 4.

XV THE mim OF JUSTIN 1 21

revolution. His intellectual powers and political capacity must
have secured to liiiii from the beginning a preponderant influence
over his old uncle, and he would naturally regard himself as the
destined successor to the throne. Immediately after Justin’s
election, he was appointed Count of the Domestics ; and then
he was invested with the rank of patrician, and was created a
Master of Soldiers in His detractors said that he

was unscrupulous in removing possible competitors for political
influence. The execution of Amantius was attributed to his
instigation.^ Vitalian was a more formidable rival, and in the
seventh month of his consulship Vitalian was murdered in the
Palace. For this crime, rightly or wrongly, Justinian was also
held responsible.^ During the remaining seven years of the
reign we may, without hesitation, regard him as the directing
power of the Empire.^ He held the consulship in a.:d. 521 and
entertained the populace with magnificent spectacles.^ When
he was afterwards elevated to the rank of nobilissimus,^ it was
a recognition of his position as the apparent heir to the throne.
We may wonder why he did not receive the higher title of Caesar ;
perhaps Justin could not overcome some secret jealousy of the
brilliant nephew whose fortune he had made.

Justinian’s power behind the throne was sustained by the
enthusiastic support of the orthodox ecclesiastics, but he is said
to have sought another means of securing his position, by
attracting the devotion of one of the Factions of the Hippodrome.
Anastasius had shown favour to the Greens ; and it followed
almost as a matter of course that Justinian should patron-
ise the Blues. In each party there was a turbulent section
which was a standing menace to public order, Imowii as the

1 See Coll Avell 162, 154, 230
(p. 696). He is mag, eqq, et p, praes.
on Ms consular diptychs.

2 Procopius, H.A. vi.

^ Ib, Here Procopius is supported
by Victor Tonn. s. a. 523 (lustiniani
patricii factio7ie). Loofs (Leontius^
259) does not believe in the guEt
of Justinian. John Malalas {De ins.^
fr. 43) seems to connect the murder
(which was committed in the Delphax
in the Palace) with riotous demonstra-
tions of the Blues and Greens in the
Hippodrome and the streets.

^ 111 the Secret History Procopius
treats the reign of Justin as virtually

part of that of Justinian. That this
view of Justinian’s influence was
generally accepted is shown by
passages in the FtibUc History and the
De aedijiciis. B.V. i. 9. 5; Aed. i.
3. 3.

® He spent 288,000 (£18,000) on the
shows, and exhibited 20 lions and 30
leopards; Marceliinus, s.a.

® Before 527; Marceliinus, s.a.
Victor Tonn. states that Justinian
was created Caesar in 525 (s.a.)^ but
his authority is inferior. Cyril, Vit
Sabae^ p. 386, does not mention
either title.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE, chap.

Partisans/ and Jiistim^ is alleged to have enlisted the Blue
Partisans in his own interest. He procured official posts for
them, gave money to those who needed it, and above all p»o-
tected them against the consequences of their riots. It is certain
that during the reign of Justin, both the capital and the cities of
the East were frequently troubled by insurrections against the
civil authorities and sanguinary fights; and it was the Blue
Paction which bore the chief share of the giiilt,^ The culminating
scandal oGGiured in a.d. 524.^ On this occasion a man of some
repute was murdered by the Partisans in St. Sophia. Justinian
happened to be dangerously ill at the time, and the matter was
laid before the Emperor. His advisers seized the opportunity
to urge upon him the necessity of taking rigorous measui‘es to
suppress the intolerable licence of these enemies of society.
Justin ordered the Prefect of the City, Theodotus Colocynthius,
to deal out merciless justice to the malefactors.^ There were
many executions, and good citizens rejoiced at the spectacle
of assassins and plunderers being hanged, bmmed, or beheaded.^
Theodotus, however, was immediately afterwards deprived of
his office and exiled to Jerusalem, and his disgrace has been
attributed to the resentment of Justinian -who had unexpectedly
recovered from his disease.® However this may have been, the

^ Ot aracTLiOTai, Procopius, ff.A. of Justin ; and it is confirmed by G.J.
vii. He says that they affected a ii. 7. 26, which was addressed to
peculiar dress, wcvaring very wide Theodotus in 524. Theodore was
sleeves drawn tight at the wrist, and Prefect of the City in 520 ( J ohii Mai
imitating the costume of the Huns fr, 43, Re ins.) ; Theodotus iras
in trousers and shoes. They allowed appointed in 522-523 (John Mai xvii.
their beards and moustaches to grow, 416) ; and was succeecled by Theodore
shaved the head in front and wore the Teganistes Hence in C.J. ix,

Iiair long behind. They used to go 19. 6 (a.d. 526) Theocloio is probably
about in organised bands at night an error for Tlieodoro,
and rob the passers-by. Por the ix. The other sources do

connexion of Justinian with the not mention Justinian’s ilhiess.

Blues, which rests on the evidence ® Marceiiinus, whose notice, though,
of the Secret History, cp. Panchenko, dated A.i>. 523, must refer to this
0 tain. ist. Prole. 89 sqq. affair.

2 John Mai xvii. 416 rh Biverov ^ Procopius (ib.) saj^s that some
eV Trdo-ais reds iroXeaiv TiraKrei of the friends of Theodotus were
(ep. H.A. viil ad init) Kai iripmaov tortured, and confessed that he had
ras TToXets ’XLOaa/xoh nai KarajSaatat^ Spoken disloyally against Justmiaii,
Kal (povoLs. This refers to the first but that the Quaestor Proelus took
years of the reign. Cp. Mansi, viil his part and proved that ho had done
1106 (relating to Syria Seeunda). nothing to deserve death. John

® The date 524 may bo inferred by Malalas (ib.) has a different story. He
combining John Mai (? 6.), who gives ascribes Justin’s anger to the fact
indiotion 3 (=524-525) for the fall of that Theodotus had'exeeiited a rich
Theodotus, with Theophanes (a.m. senator without consulting himself.
6012), who mentions the sixth year Both accounts may be true.'' Accord-

THE REIGN OF JUSTIN 1

Blues liad received an effective lesson, and during tlie last years
of tlie reign not only tffe capital but tlie provincial cities also
.enjoyed tranquillity.^ .

Tbere were few events of capital importance during tbe
reign of Justin. Its chief significance lay in the new orientation
of religious policy which was inaugurated at the very beginning,
and in the long apprenticeship to statecraft which it imposed
on Justinian before the full power and responsibility of govern-
ment devolved on him. Next to him the most influential
minister was Proclus the Quaestor, an incorruptible man who
had the reputation of an Aristides.^ There was some danger
of a breach mth the Ostrogothic ruler of Italy in a.d. 525-526,
but this menace was averted by his death, ^ and the Empire
enjoyed peace till the last year of the reign, when war broke out
with Persia,

In the spring of a.d, 527 Justin was stricken down by a
dangerous illness, and he yielded to the solicitations of the
Senate to co-opt Justinian as his colleague. The act of corona-
tion was performed in the great Triklinos in the Palace (on
April 4), and it seems that the Patriarch, in the absence
of the Emperor, placed the diadem on the head of the new
Augustus. The subsequent ceremonies were carried out in the
Delphax, where the Imperial guards were assembled, and not,
as was usual, in the Hippodrome.^ Justin recovered, but only
to survive for a few months. He died on August 1, from an
ulcer in the foot where, in one of his old campaigns, he had
been wounded by an arrow.^

^2, Justinian

The Emperor Justinian was about forty-five years old when
he ascended the throne.^ Of his personal appearance vre can

ing to John of MIdu (p. 503) he in the case of Alexandria,
arrested a nephew of Justm. Pro- ® Procopins, B,F. i 11. 11; E,A.
copius and Malalas agree that at vi. 13-14 ; John Lydus, De mag. iii.

Jerusalem Theodotiis remained in 20 llpoKXos 6 OLicaLoraTos.

eoncealment, belie \dng that his life ^ Qliajp XVIII. § i.

was ill danger. ^ Constantine Porph. Ger. i. 95

^ John Mat where it is stated (from the KaTd(rra<TLs of Peter the
the public spectacles ivere generally Patrician),
prohibited, and that all iirofessional ® John MaL xvii. 424.

dancers w’ere banished from the ® Zonaras, xiv. 5. 40 (we do not

East, hut that an exception was made know the source).

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE (mKB.

form some idea from tlie description of contemporary ’^niters d-
and from portraits on Ms coins and in mosaic pictiires.^ He
was of middle lieight, neither tMn nor fat ; Ms smooth shaken
face was rounds he had a straight nose, a firm chin, curly hair
wMch, as he aged, became tMn in front. A slight smile seems
to have been characteristic. The bust wMch appears on the
coinage issued when he had reached the age of fifty-six, shows
that there was some truth in the resemblance which a hostile
writer detected between his countenance and that of the Emperor
Domitian.

His intellectual talents were far above the ordinary standard
of Eoman Emperors, and if fortune had not called him to the
throne, he would have attained eminence in some other career.
For with his natural gifts he possessed an energy which nothing
seemed to tire ; he loved work, and it is not improbable that
he was the most hardworking man in the Empire. Though his
mind was of that order w^hich enjoys occupying itself wdth
details, it was capable of conceiving large ideas and embracing
many interests. He permitted himself no self-indulgence ; and
his temperance was ascetic. In Lent he used to fast entirely
for two days, and during the rest of the season he abstained

^ Procopius, HA. viii, 12-13 ;
John MaL xviii, 425.

2 There are tvo pictures at Ravenna,
one in the apse of S. Vitale dating
from A.n. 547, the other in the nave
of S. ApoIUnare hTuovo, about ten
years later. The former is a bad
portrait ; the face is oval, whereas
all the other evidence both literary
and monumental concurs in showing
that it u^as round. He also wears a
moustache ; perhaps this -was true
in 547, though not in 538 or 557
(John Mai speaks of a beard, but if
this is not simply an error, it must
refer to the very end of his life). The
other picture, truer to life, shows a
round, smooth, shaven face, and con-
veys the impression of a man who
is losing his old energy. The evidence
of the coinage, admirably elucidated,
by Wroth {Byz. CoinSy i. pp. xc.-xcii),
is more important. The early coins
of the reign display a purely con-
ventional face, but in a.b. 538
changes were introduced. Bronze
money Tvas inscribed with the year
of issue, and a new Imperial bust

appeared both on gold and on bronze
coins, and was not changed again.
The previous bust on the gold of
A.n. 527 had a three-quarters face ;
the new bust showed a full face,
shaven, round, plump, with a slight
smile — unquestionably a genuine por-
trait of the man w’bom the picture in
S. Apollinare show's wiicn lie was
20 years older. There is also a gold
medallion (perhaps of 534 ; cp.
Wroth, i. p. 25, and C'edrcnus, i. p.
649), on W'hicli the i^mperur’s bust
appears -with round shtu'en face.
Tile fifteenth - century drawing of
Justinian’s equestrian* statue iii the
Augiisteum (reproduced in Hield,
Justinien, p. 27) does not help, nor
the silver disk of Kerch which shows
an Emperor on horseback (Hielii,
p. 30, but the identity of the Emperor
is doubtful). The Barbeiini ivory
(Diehl, frontispiece) W'ould be usefai,
if its date w'ere certain, but some
ascribe it to the age of (Amsiantsno
the Great, Compare (as well as
"Wroth) Dielil’s interesting aqiprecia-
tion of the mosaics.

XV JUSTINIAN 25

from wine and lived on wild Herbs dressed with oil and vinegar.
He slept little and worked far into the niglit.^ His manners
were naturally afiable. As Emperor he was easily aecessiblej
and showed no offence if a bold or tactless subject spoke with
a freedom which others wonld have resented as disrespectful.
He was master of his temper, and seldom broke out into anger.^
He could exhibit, too, the quality of mercy. Probus, the nephew
of Anastasius, accused of reviling him, was tried for treason.
When the report of the trial was laid before the Emperor he
tore it up and said to Probus, I pardon you for your offence
against me. Pray that God also may pardon you.’’ ^

The reign of a ruler endowed with these estimable qualities,
animated by a strong and unflagging sense of duty, devoting
himself day and night to the interests of the State ^ for thirty-
eight years, could not fail to be memorable. Memorable
assuredly it was. Justinian wrought not only for his own time
but for posterity. He enhanced the prestige of the Empire and
enlarged its borders. He bequeathed, by his monumental
work in Eoman law, an enduring heritage to Europe ; while
the building of the Church of St. Sophia would in itself be an
imperishable title to the gratitude of men. These achievements,
however, are only one side of the picture. The successes and
glories of his reign were to be purchased at a heavy cost, and
the strain which he imposed on the resources of the State was
followed by decline and disaster after his death. Perhaps no
more scathing denunciation of the character, aims, and methods
of a ruler has ever been vritten than the notorious indictment
which the contemporary historian Procopius committed to the
pages of a Secret History, wherein Justinian is represented as
a malignant demon in human form.^ Though the exaggerations
of the ■writer are so gross and manifest that his venomous pen
defeats its own object, there is sufficient evidence from other

^ Tlie statements of Procopius in meet another instance in the case
II. A, vi. 2S-30 and in i 7. 7-11 of the conspirator Artahanes. Op.
are almost identical. In the latter Procopius, A ed i. I. 10 and 16.
passage it is said that these excess- ^ Cp. John Lydus, Te nhcig. in.
ively abstemious practices caused a 55 aypuTryoTarcv.

painful disease in the knee, which Cp. in the verses

was niiraculoiisly healed by the relics inscribed in the church of >SS. Sergius
of saints which had been discovered and Bacchus, which he built (C.l.G,
at Meliteno.

- 11. A. 13. 1-3. ® The credibility of the Secret Ilis-

- John Mai. xviii. 438. We shall is discussed below, Chap. XXIV.

26 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

sources to show that the reign of Justinian was, in many ways,
far from being a blessing to his subjects.

The capital error of Justinian’s policy was due to a theoiy
which, though not explicitly formulated till quite recent times,
has misled many eminent and well-meaning sovrans and states-
men in all periods of history. It is the theory that the expansion
of a state and the exaltation of its prestige and honour are
ends in themselves, and valuable without any regard to the
happiness of the men and women of whom the state consists.
If this proposition had been presented nakedly either to Justinian
or to Louis XIV., he -would have indignantly repudiated it,
but both these monarchs, like many another, acted on it,
with most unhappy consequences for their subjects. Justinian
possessed imagination. He had formed a high ideal of the
might and majesty of the Empire of which he was the master.
It humiliated him to contrast its moderate limits with the vast
extent of territory over which the word of Constantine or
Theodosius the Great had been law. He -was dazzled by the
idea of restoring the old boundaries of the Roman Empire,
For though he only succeeded in recovering, as we shall see,
Africa, Italy, and a small strip of Spain, his designs reached to
Gaul, if not to Britain. After he had conquered the African
provinces he announced his ambitious policy. We have good
hopes that God will grant us to restore our authority over the
remaining countries which the ancient Romans possessed to
the limits of both oceans and lost by subsequent neglect.” ^
In drawing up this magnificent programme, Justinian did not
consider whether such an extension of his government w^ould
make his subjects, who had to bear the costs of Ms campaigns,
happier or better. He assumed that whatever increased the
power and glory of the state must also increase the w^ell-being of
its members. The resources of the state were not more than
sufficient to protect the eastern frontier against the Persians
and the Danubian against the barbarians of the north; and if
the Emperor had been content to perform these duties more
efficiently than his predecessors, he wmuld unquestionably have
deserved better of his subjects.

His conception of the greatness of the Empire wars indissolubly
associated with his conception of the greatness of its sovran,

1 Noh\ 30, § 11, published just after the conquest of Sicily, in 536.

XV; jusTimAu :27;

and lie asserted the absoltitism of the autocrat in a degree wMcii
no Emperor had hitherto attempted.^ This was conspioiiously
sh!Own in the dictatorship which he claimed over the Church.
He was the first Emperor who studied dogmatic questions
independently and systematically, and he had all the confidence
of a professional theologian. A theologian on the throne is a
public danger, and the principle of persecuting opinion, which
had been fitfully and mildly pursued in the fifth century, was
applied rigorously and systematically under Justinian. His
determination to be supreme in all departments made Mm
impatient of advice ; he did not like his commands to be dis-
cussed, and he left to Ms ministers little latitude for decision.
His passion for dealing personally with the minute details of
government had the same unfortunate results as in the case of
Philip II.^ Like other autocrats, he was jealous and suspicious,
and ready to listen to calumnies against his most loyal servants.
And there was a vein of weakness in Ms character. He faltered
at one supremely critical moment of his reign, and his consort,
Theodora, had an influence over Mm which no woman could
have exercised over an Augustus or a Constantine.

§ 3. Theodora

It was probably before he had any prospect of the throne
that Justinian formed a violent attachment to a girl of ex-
ceptionah charms and talents, but of low birth and blemished
reputation, Theodora had already borne at least one cMld to
a lover ^ when she captured the heart of the future Emperor.
According to a tradition— and perhaps she countenanced this
story herself, for she could not deny the humility of her birth —
she had come from Paphlagonia to the capital, where she was

^ Agatiiias, v. 14 avroKpiroap oPofiaTi
re teal TrpdjfiaTi, dTredideiKTO,

“ Diehl has noted the resemblance.
DieliFs judgment of the Emjjeror’s
character is that, with many high
qualities, he had “ ime ame de valeur
plutot mediocre ” (p. 21),

® A daughter, whose son Anas-
tasius or Athanasius married J oannina,
daiiirhter of Belisarius. Procopius,
HJ: iv. 37 ; Jolm Eph. Part III. v.
1, (Perhaps the same Athahasius

is meant in John Pliiloponus, De
opip mundi, i, Prooem., as Reichardt
thinks.) According to H.A. 17, 16 sqq.
she had also a son John, w^ho was
taken as an infant by his unnamed
father to Arabia because Theodora
wished to destroy her offspring.
W%en he had grown up, he was
informed by his dying father of the
secret of Ms birth. He went to
Byzantium and revealed himself
to the Empress, who arranged that
he should never be seen again.

28 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN ^EMPIRE chap.

discovered by Justinian, maldng a scanty living by spinning
woolJ But contemporary rumours wbicb were circulated by
ber enemies assigned to ber a less respectable origin, and t6ld
a circumstantial story of a girlhood spent in singular infamy.
Sbe was said to be tbe daughter of Acacius, who was employed
by the Green Faction at Constantinople as keeper of the wild
beasts,^ which they exhibited at public spectacles. When
Acacius died his widow married his successor, but this man was
soon deprived of the office in favour of another who paid a
bribe to obtain it.^ The woman sent her three little daughters,
Comito,^ Theodora, and Anastasia, in the guise of suppliants
with fillets on their heads, to beg the Greens assembled in the
Hippodrome to reinstate their stepfather who had been so
unjustly treated. The Greens obdurately refused ; but the
Blues had compassion and appointed the man to be their cwn
bear-keeper, as the post happened to be vacant. This incident
of her childhood was said to be the explanation of the Empress
Theodora’s implacable hostility towards the Greens. The three
sisters, when they were older, went on the stage, and in those
days an actress was almost synonymous with a prostitute.
According to the scandalous gossip, which is recorded with
malicious relish in the Secret History of Procopius, Theodora
showed exceptional precocity and shamelessness in a career
of vice. Her adventures were not confined to Constantinople.
She went to the Libyan Pentapolis as the mistress of a new
governor, but having quarrelled with him she betook herself
to Alexandria, and worked her way back to the capital, where
she entrapped Justinian.^

This chapter of her biography, which reposes solely on the

^ lldrpia, p. 248. To commemor- the Empress Is described as r/p' ck tov
ate her old abode she founded the Tropm'oi? (so Panchenko, ojk dt 73),
church of St. Panteieemon on the but these words are certainly an
site. interpolation, for it is incredible" that

^ ’Apurorp'jcpos, bear-keeper, was the they .were written by John, who was
term. a devoted admirer of the Empress

® The official known as (cp. Diehl, Oj?). dt, 42). Was the

had these appointments in his hands, interpolator acquainted with the
^ We know from another mnvcie Secret Eistonj*i Perhaps i. lie expres-
than E.A. that Theodora had a sister sion is due to a tradition that Theo-
Comito. She married Sittas, Master dora had acted at a theatre a.t
of Soldiers. John M'al. xviii. 430. Constantinople which was in a street
^ Theaccountof her career in /J.i. is. known by the suggestive name of
stands alone. Some have thought that See Justinian, Roi\ 105, § 1

it gains some support from a passage TpooBop ewl rb Oearpoy dyovaay ' 7 ]y
in John Eph. Comm. p. 68, where Si? KaXoimr^

THEODORA

testimony of enemies, has more value as a, picture of contem-
porary manners than as an indictment of the morals of Theodora.
Itiis difficult to believe that if her girlhood had been so steeped
in vice and infamy as this scandalous document asserts, she
could have so completely changed as to develop into a matron
whose conjugal chastity the same enemies could not seriously
impugn, although they were ready to insinuate suspicions.^
But it would be foolish to argue that the framework of the story
is entirely fictitious. Theodora may have been the daughter
of a bear-keeper, and she may have appeared on the stage. And
her youth may have been stormy; we know that she was the
mother of an illegitimate child.

After the rise in his fortunes through the accession of his
uncle, Justinian seems to have secured for his mistress the rank
of a patrician.^ He wished to marry her, but the Empress
Euphemia resolutely opposed this step, and it was not till after
her death ^ that Theodora became the wife of Justinian. When
he was raised to the throne, she was, as a matter of course,
crowned Augusta.

Her beauty and charm were generally acknowledged. We
may imagine her as a small pale brunette, with a delicate oval
face aud a solemn intense expression in her large black eyes.^
Portraits of her are preserved in marble, in mosaics, and on
ivory. There is a life-size bust of her at Milan, which was originally
coloured ; the tip of the nose is broken off, but the rest is well
preserved, and we can see the attractiveness of her face.^ Then

1 Cp. H..A, 16. 11 vTTo^ias de was still a patrician, but this was

<TVfnr€0'o^a7}s X^pwroXrjTrri^ elvaiy probably after lier iriarriage {Goniw...

€h' tQp olicerQv 'iva 'Apeo^ipBov ovop,a. p. 68).

Tb© supplement is Haury’s. Diebl ^ H. A. 9, 47. The year is not
observes that it is not recorded that known, but she died before Justin,
any personal taunts were levelled at ^ H. A, 10. 11 evirpixrwTros Kal evxapLs
Theodora during the Nika revolt fUXws, cp. Aed. L 11. 8. Procopius
{p. 44) ; but this is not quite true (see describes her as k-oXo/35s, an uncom-
Okron. PascK, sub 532 ras h^pLariKas plimentary way of saying that she
(Pm'ds iLs ’ikeyov \ , . ds rijp ady ovarav \YS,s petite,

QGodd'pav). ® The identification is due to Del-

- II. A. 9. 30. If this was so, the briick, byps. Kais., whoso

law of Justin relaxing the rule wdiich arguments have convinced me. He
forbade senators to marry actresses proved in the first place by a very
{O.J. V. 4. 23 ; 520 - 523) Avas not complete examination of the lieadgear
required, as has been supposed, , for of Empresses in the fifth and sixth
the purpose of making Justinian’s centuries that the bust belongs to
marriage possible. Cp. Panchenko, the sixth ; and that it is Theodora’s
op. ciL 74. John of Ej>hesus refers is demonstrated by a comparison with
to Theodora’s activity in the matter ■ the mosaics and the ivories. It is
of a Monophysite deacon, w^hile she in the archaeological museum of Castel

mSTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

we have two ivory tablets representing her in imperial robes.^
These three portraits show her probably as she was from the
age of thirty to thirty-five. She is visibly an older womans in
the mosaic picture in the church of S. Vitale at Eavenna
(c. A.D. 547), but the resemblance to the bust can be discerned in
the shape of the face, in the mouth, and in the eyes. But the
dominion which she exercised over Justinian w^as due more to
her mental qualities than to her physical charms. A contem-
porary writer praises her as superior in intelligence to all the
world,” ^ and all that we know of her conduct as Empress shows
that she was a woman of exceptional brain and courage. Her
influence in the Emperor’s counsels w^as publicly acknowledged
in a way which had no precedent in the past. In a law which
aimed at suppressing corruption in the appointment of provincial
governors, the Emperor declared that in framing it “ we have
taken as partner in our counsels our most pious consort given
to us by God.” ^ At the end of the law an oath of allegiance is
prescribed. The official is to swear loyalty to our divine and
pious despots, Justinian, and Theodora, the consort of his
throne.” But although J ustinian’s devotion to his wife prompted
him to increase her dignity and authority in the eyes of the
Empire in unusual ways, it wmuld be a mistake to suppose that
legally she possessed powers which former Empresses had not
enjoyed or that she was co-regent in the constitutional seiise.''^
Custom was strained to permit her unusual privileges. For
instance, she is said to have received foreign envoys and pre-
sented them with gifts as if the Eoman Empire were under

Sforzesco. Ifc is probably eastern sceptre in her left hand and a crueiger
work, and must have been set up at globe in her right. On tlie segnicntiiin
Milan either in 53S, during the few of her chiamys is a male bust with
months in which the town was in a sceptre in his left and the liand-
Imperial hands, or before 535. kerchief {inappa) in Ids right. Tin’s

^ These tablets (of which one is at points tr> the consular games, so tlmt
the Bargello in Florence, the other the presumption is that the tablet
at Vienna) seem to be leaves of the was associated with a- (ionsulship of
same diptych. Graven thought that Justinian, and tills would date it-
the lady was Amalasuntha, but the to 528 or 533 or 534. On the \'ieniia
diadem, which Gothic royalties never tablet the Emiiress is entiiruned,
wore, disproves this. For comparison and on the ehlamys is a female bust,
we have a small portrait of Theodora which Delbriick suggests tuiglit lie
on the consular diptych of tlustin that of her niece 8o])]iia, nftiuuvards
(a.d. 540) which is preserved at Empress.

Berlin. There can be little doubt - John Lydus, Dp iii. 09.

that Belbriick is right in his identi- ® Nov. 8, "a.d. 535.

fication. On the Bargello tablet ^ Compare the remarks of Pan-
tile Empress is standing with a chenko, op. cit. 74-70,

THEODORA

lier rule.’’ ^ Ohosioes was amazed when his minister Zabergan
showed him a letter which he had received from Theodora
ui^iiig him to press his master to make peace.^ Such incidents
might well give the impression that the Empire was ruled by
two co-equal sovrans, and some thought that Theodora had
greater power than Justinian himself,^ Such power as she
possessed she owed to her personal influence over her husband
and to his toleration of her intervention in public afiairs.

She was not indeed content to pursue her aims merely by
the legitimate means of persuading the monarch. "V^dien she
knew that he had resolutely determined on a line of policy which
was not in accordance with her own wishes, she did not scruple
to act independently. The most important matter in which
their views diverged was ecclesiastical policy. Theodora was
a devoted Monophysite, and one of her constant preoccupations
was to promote the Monophysitic doctrine and to protect its
adherents from the penal consequences which they incurred
under Justinian’s laws. Her husband must have been well
aware that she had an intelligence department of her own and
that secret intrigues were carried on of which he would not
have approved. But she was clever enough to calculate just
how far she could go.

Her power of engaging in independent political action was
due to her economic independence. She had large financial
resources at her disposal, for which apparently she had to render
no account. The personal expenses of an Emperor’s consort
and the maintenance of her household were provided by estates
in Asia Minor which were managed by a high steward known as
the Curator of the House of Augusta,^ who was responsible to
her. Justinian appears to have increased these estates con-
siderably for the benefit of Theodora.^ He gave her large
donations on the occasion of her marriage.® The house known

^ Proeopiu-S, //.xt. 30. 24. reign following, Justin and SopMa

^ Ih, ii. 32 sqq, Theodora had appear together in many issues,
known Zabergan when he had come ^ Curator dlvhiae damns serenis-
as envoy to Gonstantinople. simae. Augustae, Q.J. vii. 37. 3.

® The view is expressed by iZonaras, ® For her estates in Capj)adocia,
xiv. 6. 5-6. It is highly remarkable , yielding a revenue of 50 lbs. of gold
that no coins were issued with (over £2250), see Nor, 30. 6 ; in
Theodora’s name and face, an honoiir Helenopontiis, Nor. 28. 5; in Papilla -
which had been accorded to all gonia, 29. 4.
iVugustae until Justin’s reign (there ^ Procopius says that he

are no coins of Euphemia, see Wroth, lavished on her large sums of money
iwj?. Byz, Coins, xiv. note 4). In the before his marriage, E.A. 9. 31,

32 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

as tlie palace of Hormisdas, in wMck Justiman resided
before Ms elevation to tlie throne, was enlarged an.d enclosed
witliin the precincts of tlie Great Palace, and placed at the disposal
■of the Empress.^ , , '■“ ,

Theodora did much to deserve the reputation of a beneficent
queen, always ready to use her influence for redressing wrongs,^
and particularly solicitous to assist the unhappy of her own. sex A
To her initiative are ascribed the stringent laws which were
passed to suppress the traffic in young girls, which flourished
as actively then as in modern Europe, and was conducted by
similar methods, which the legislator graphically describes.
Agents used to travel through the provinces to entice to the
capital poor girls, sometimes under ten years of age, by the bait
of fine clothes and an easy life. Indigent parents were easily
persuaded by a few gold coins to consent to the ruin of their
daughters. The victims, when they came to the city, were fed
and clothed miserably, and kept shut up in the houses of ill-fame,
and they were forced to sign written contracts with their infamous
masters. Sometimes compassionate patrons of these establish-
ments offered to deliver one of these slaves from her misery by
marrying her, but the procurers generally refused to consent.
The new edict forbade the trade and ordered that all procurers
should be banished from Constantinople.’^ The principle of
compensation, however, seems to have been applied. The
patrons were allowed to state on oath how much money they
had given to the parents of each girl ; the average price was five
nomismata, and Theodora paid the total out of her private
purse.^ To receive unfortunate women who abandoned a life
of shame, a palace on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, not far
from the Black Sea, v/as converted into a convent wffiich was
known as Metanoia or Repentance.^

^ Procopius, Aed. i. 4. 1 and 10. 4 ; to Noi\ 14, but may refer to measures
John Eph.' Go7nm. c. 42. taken by the Prefect t>f the Chly. A

John Lydus, De mag. iii. 09, recrudeseeiiee of the foEhdden ■j)rac-

® Procopius, B.G. iii. 32 tices was inevitable, and may have

yap dd dvjTvxovo-cu^ yvpai^l necossittited the legislation of 53o.

^ Nov. 14 (a.:d. 5So), addressed to A law of i'^o 1. against the tralHu
the people of Constantinople. will be found in C.J. xl 41. 7.

® This is related by John Mai. xviii. ® Procopius, i. 0. o-lO,. anti
440-441, as if it occurred in A. L>. 529. ILA. 11. 5. Jii the latter passages
There is no reason to question the the author represents the actimi of
date. The words Ke\€vcracrct (Theo- Theodora as tyrannical. ‘‘ Slio eol-
dora) Tou \oL7rod jurj dvan wogvo^oerKo^^ iected in the middle f>f the Forum
need not be an anticipatory reference more than 500 prostitutes who made

THEODORA

Theodora was perhaps too eager to interferej as a sort of
beneficent providence, in the private affairs of individual persons,
and* her offices were not always appreciated. She is said to
have forced two sisters, who belonged to an old senatorial family
and had lost their husbands, to marry a.gainst their will vulgar
men who were utterly unworthy of them.^ And her enemies
alleged that in her readiness to espouse the cause of women
she committed grave acts of injustice and did considerable harm.
Wives who* were divorced for adultery used to appeal to the
Empress and bring accusations against their husbands, and she
always took their part and compelled the unfortunate men to
pay double the dowry, if she did not cause them to be whipped
and thrown into prison. The result was that men put up with
the infidelity of their waves rather than run such risks.^ It
is impossible to decide how much truth there may be in these
charges, but they illustrate Theodora’s desire to be the protectress
and champion of her own sex.

There can be little doubt that the Empress used her position
to exercise a patronage in appointments to offices, which was not
always in the public interest, and that she had few scruples in
elevating her favourites and disgracing men who displeased her.®
It must, however, be confessed that in the two cases in which we
have good evidence that she intervened to ruin officials, her
intervention was beneficial. Thus she procured the disgrace
of an Imperial secretary named Priscus, an unprincipled man
who had grown rich at the publie expense. He was alleged to
have spoken against her, and as she could not prevail on Justinian
to take action, she caused the man to be put on board a ship and
transported to Gyzicus, where he w^as tonsured. Justinian
acquiesced in the accomplished fact and confiscated his property.

a bare Imng, and sending them across and Praejecta she had a locus standi,
to the convent called Metanoia she as Praejecta was Justinian’s niece
shut them up and forced them to (B,G, iii. 31, see below, p. 146).
change their way of life. Some of ^ Ib. 17. 24, sqq.

them threw themselves down from ® The case of Peter Barsymes is a

a height (the roof or a high window) notable example, H,A, 22. 22 sqq.
and in this way escaped the com- She is said to have intended to create
puisory change,” Theodosius, the lover of Antonina,

^ ILA. 17. 7 sqq. Op. the case of a maq. mil., ib. iii. 19. Peter the
Saturninus, son of the mag. off. Patrician may have owed his pro-
Hermogenes, ib. 32 sqq. Her inter- motion to the post of mag. off. to her
ference in the domestic affairs of favour (see below, p. 166).

Behsarius, of which Procopius knows * The details are told in f/.A. 16.
so much, is assuredly not entirely 7-10, but the main fact is confirmed
invented. In the case of Artabanes by Joim Mai. xviii. 449 and Dq ins.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap,

Procopius, ill liis Secret has several stories to tell of cruel

pimishments wliicli she inflicted privately on persons \¥ho had
offended her. Lurid tales were whispered of the terrible secret
dungeons of her palace in which men disappeared for ever/ and
the known fact that she had the means of maintaining heretics
in concealment for years made gossip of this kind appear credible.^
Whatever may be the truth about her alleged vengefulness and
cruelty, it is certain that she was feared.

There was no disguise in the attitude which she assumed as
head of the ecclesiastical opposition to Justinian’s policy, and
he must have been fully aware that secret intrigues were carried
on which he would not have sanctioned. It seemed indeed
difficult to believe that a man of his autocratic ideas would have
tolerated an independent power beside his own ; and the theory
was put forivard that this apparent discord betw^een their aims
and views was a political artifice deliberately planned to blind
their subjects, and to facilitate the transactions 'which the
Emperor could not openly permit.^ This theory may contain
a small measure of truth so far as ecclesiastical policy is con-
cerned. It may have been convenient to the Emperor to allow'’
the severities wLich his policy forced him to adopt against the
Monophysites to be mitigated by the clandestine and illegal
protection which the Empress afforded to them. But otherwise
the theory can hardly be entertained seriously. We can only
regard the latitude which was allow^ed to Theodora as due to
Justinian’s weakness. And she was clever enough to kno\v
how far she’ could venture.

Her habits presented a contrast to the temperance and
simplicity of Justinian. She spent a long time in her bath. At
her meals she indulged in every kind of food and drink. She
slept long both at night and in her daily siesta.’^ She spent
many months of the year in the subinban palaces on the sea-
shore, especiall}^ at Hmion (on the coast of Bitliyiiia, opposit(3
the Islands of the Princes), which Justinian enlarged and

fr, 45. The other more iini)ortanfc phanes lx. 074).

case is that of Jolin of Caiipadocia, ^ Private pris((!iy vere forbiddtMi

see below, p. 57. Haury is certainly bylaw, C.J. ix. 5. 2 (529).

right in supposing that in describing ^ 7/.yl. 10 . O’hoodora’s active

Priscus as i I a</>Xa 7 t 6 i', Procopius docs partisanship for tJtc Blue FaeMon,

not mean that he was a Paphlagonian, of which Justinian professed to dis-

but is alluding to Cleon, “the Paphla- approve, is given as an iristanee.

gonian ” of the Knights of Aristo- ® ILA. 15. 0 sgq.

THEODORA

improved.^ Sometimes slie vivsited tlie liot springs of Pjtliia
(in Bithyiiia), wliero Justinian also built an Imperial residence.
Oii^ tliese occasions slie was attended by an immense retinue of
patricians and cliamberlains.^ For Tbeodora had all a parvenue's
love of pomp and show, and she was probably encouraged by
^ the Emperor, -who, though simple in his own tastes, thought
much of public splendour and elaborate ceremonial as a means
of enhancing the Imperial niajesty. W’e are told that new and
abasing forms of etiquette were introduced at court. When
the Senate appeared in the presence of the Emperor, it had
been the custom for one of the patricians to kiss the sovran on
the right breast, and the sovran replied to the salutation by
kissing the head of the patrician. No corresponding ceremony
was practised in the case of the Empress. Under Justinian
and Theodora it became obligatory that all persons, of whatever
rank, should prostrate themselves on entering the presence of
the Emperor and of the Empress alike. The spirit of oriental
servility in the Palace was shown by the fact that officials and
members of the court who, in talking among themselves used to
speak of the sovrans as the Emperor ” and the “ Empress ”
{BasUeus and Basilis), now began to designate them as the
'' Lord ” and the Lady ” {Despotes and Despoma) and described
themselves as their slaves ; and any one who did not adopt these
forms was considered to have committed an impardonable
solecism.^

It is not imj)robable that, if Justinian had wedded a daughter
of one of the senatorial families, many people would have been
happier, and the atmosphere of the Palace would have been less
dangerously charged with suspicion and intrigue. But, if
Theodora was greedy of pow'er and often unscrupulous in her
methods, her energy and determination on one occasion rescued
^ the throne, and on another rendered a signal service to the
community. And there is no reason to suppose that in her
conduct generally she was not honestly convinced that, if she
employed irregular means, she was acting in the true interests
of the State.

^ 16., where it is said that the court of her visit in 529, acc. to John Mai.
siift'ered much discomfort at Herion. xviii. 441. For the palace see Aed*
For the reconstruction of the palace v. 3, 16-20.
see Aed. L IL 16-22.

- Four thousand on tlic occasion ® H.A. 30. 21-20.

36 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap,

§ 4. John the Cappadocian, Praetorian Prefect of the East

The brilliancy of Justinian’s reign did not bring happiness
or contentment to his subjects. His determination to increase
the power of the throne and retain the government more com-
pletely in his own hands caused dissatisfaction in the senatorial
circles and inevitably led to tyranny ; and his ambitious plans
of expansion involved expenses that could only be met by
increasing the financial burdens which already weighed too
heavily on the people.

The frugal policy of Anastasius had bequeathed to his successor
a reserve of 320j000 lbs. of gold (about 14| millions sterling).
In the reign of Justin these savings were dissipated, as well
as a further amount of 400,000 lbs. which had come into the
treasury in addition to the regular revenue.^ A heavy tax on
the exchequer was caused by the terrible earthquake of May
A.D. 626, which laid the city of Antioch in ruins and destroyed,
it is said, 250,000 people.^ In the following year war broke out
with Persia, and when Justinian came to the throne, the financial
position was not such as to justify any extraordinary enterprises.
It is asserted by a civil servant who had a long career in the
office of the Praetorian Prefect of the East, that the unfavourable
financial situation was cliiefily caused by the incompetence of
those who had held the Prefecture in the reign of Justin.^
Justinian after some time found a man for the post who knew
how to fill the treasury.

John, a native of Caesarea in Cappadocia, began as a clerk
in the offi,ce of a Master of Soldiers. In this ca|)acity he became,
by some chance, known to JustiniaUj and he was promoted to
the post of logothete, a name which had now come into general
use for those responsible officials who, under the Praetorian
Prefect, controlled the operations of the subordinate assessors
and collectors of taxes in the provinces.^^ In the case of Slarinus,

i John Lyd. De mag. iii. 51; Pro- earthquake befell Antioch at the end
eo})ms, I/.A. 19. 7-8 seems of 529, ib. 442.

to moan irregularly ^ John Lyd. iii. 5,1.

“ John Lyd. 54. The details ^ The office of if.>gothete is dis-
of this disaster are vividly described cussed at length by Panchenko, op.
by the Antiochene writer John Mai. cU. 106 Er/g. "Stehi has shown that
xvii. 419 The Emperor showed it is probably the (Ireek equivalent
his sorrow by appearing in St, Sophia of scrinuiritis (cp. above, A'oi. I.
without his diadem. Another serious Chap. xiii. § 3, p. 442).

JOHN THE CAPPADOCIAN

tliis post had been a. stepping-stone to tlie Prefecture itself, and
John had the same luck. He was first raised to the rank of an
illifstris, and became Praetorian Prefect before a.d. 531d He
had not the cpialifications which might have been thought
indispensable for the duties of this ministry, for he had not
^ received a liberal education, and could barely read and wuite ;
but he had the qualification which was most essential in the eyes
of the Emperor, talent and resoiu*cefulness in raising money.
His physical strength and energy were enormous, and in diffi-
culties he was never at a loss.^ He is described as the boldest
and cleverest man of his time.^ But he was absolutely un-
scrupulous in his methods, and wffiile he supplied the Emperor
with the funds which he required, he also became himself
enormously rich and spent his money on gluttony and debauchery.

He did not fear God, nor regard man.” The provinces of
Lydia and Cilicia were a conspicuous scene of Ms operations.
He procured the appointment of another Cappadocian, also
named John, to the governorship of Lydia — a man after his own
heart, enormously fat and popularly luiown as Maxilloplumacius
(Flabby- jaw). With the help of this lieutenant, the Prefect
ruined Lydia and its capital, Philadelphia. He visited the
province himself , and we are told that when he had done with it,
he had left not a vessel in a house, nor a wife, a virgin, or a youth
imviolated. The exaggeration is pardonable, for our informant
was born at Philadelphia. The same wTiter gives particular
instances — some of which had come mider his owm observation —
of the violent means to which John the Cappadocian resorted to
extort money from rich persons. He had dark dungeons in the
Prefect’s residence, and he made use of torture and painful fetters.'^
While contemporary waiters agree in painting John as a

^ John Lyd. ih. 57. John is Pr. Pr.
on April 30, 531 (O.J. vi. 27. 5),
Julian on Feb. 20 (ib. iii. 1. 16).

“ The soiiL’ces for John’s character
arc Procopius, B.P. i. 24 and John
Lyd. lb. 57 sqq. (where we get the
dtd’.aiis). The two pictures agree.

^ Procopius, B. V. i. 10. 7.

^ John Lydus can find no terms too
strong to describe the Prefect’s cruelty
and luxury (Plialaris, Cyclops, Brx-
areus, Sardanapalus, etc.). For his
debauchery see ce. 62, 65. As John

Lydus was an official in the Prefecture,
his testimony is valuable, though
on the other hand he may have
had private reasons of animosity
(cp, c. 66), and his respect for the
.traditions of the office made a rude
uneducated Prefect, who introduced
practical innovations in the conduct
of business, repellent to Mm. It
seems certain that Maxilloplumacius
was governor of Lydia, for he must
be meant by t6u bf.ibyvLov Kai o/xo-
'ipvxov TTjs avTov [ideXupias virapxo^

(that, is, €7rapxoi>) c. 61.

HISTORY OF THE L4,TER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

coarse monster, witliout a single redeeming quality, we must
make some allowance for exaggeration. It is unlikely tliat lie
Y\^oiild have enjoyed so long tke confidence of tlie Emperof if
Iiis sole recommendation Iiad been skill in plundering tlie pro-
vinces. As a matter of fact, we stall see that during Hs second
tenure of the Prefecture, wbicli lasted about nine years, a series
of provincial reforms was carried tlirougb wliich intimately
concerned Ms own sphere of administration and in some respects
diminislied Ms power. TMs could not have been done without
Ms co-operation, and we cannot fairly withhold from him part
of whatever credit the legislation deserves. We may conjecture
that he won and retained Ms influence over the Emperor, not
only through his success in replenisMng the treasury, but also
partly through Ms independence, which was displayed when he
openly opposed the project of conquering Africa, and partly
through the fact that he was not hamj)ered by conservative
prejudices. It was chiefly his indifference to the traditions of
the civil service that made him unpopular among the officials
of the Prefecture.

Besides increasing the revenue by fair means and foul, John
had recourse to economies which were stigmatised by contem-
porary opinion as injurious to the public interest. He cut oft’
or reduced the service of the State post, with the exception of
the main line to the Persian frontier. The post from Chalcedon
to Dakibiza 'was abolished, and replaced by a service of boats to
Helenopolis, while in southern Asia Minor and Syria asses were
substituted for horses and the speed of travelling was diminished.
The results were twofold. The news of disasters in the provinces,
which demanded prompt action, was slow in reaching Con-
stantinople. More serious was the consequence for the farmers
in the inland provinces, who, dejjrived of the public means of
transport, were obliged to provide for the transmission of their
produce to the ports to be conveyed to the capital. Large
quantities of corn rotted in the granaries ; the husbandmen
were impoverished; and the Prefect’s officials pressed for
payment of the taxes in gold.^ Multitudes of destitute people
left their homes and went to Constantinople.^

^ Procopius, ILA, 30. 8-11 ; Jolm attempted to make a breach between
I«yd. ib. 61. Justinian and Tiieodora, Procopius,

2 John Lyd. ib, 70. John had BR, I 25. 4 ; ILA. 17. 38.

THE NIKA REVOLT

Justinian was well satisfied with, the fruits of John’s ad-
ministration, and only too ready to shut his eyes to the methods
by -J^vhich the funds he needed were procured. How far he was
really innocent it is impossible to determine, but we are assured
that the ministers and courtiers always praised the Prefect to
the Emperor, even though they had personal grievances against
him. At length Theodora, who disliked the Cappadocian and
was well acquainted with his iniquities, endeavoured to open
Justinian’s eyes and to show him that, if the tyrannical ad-
ministration were allowed to continue, Ms own position would
be endangered. If her arguments produced any effect on his
mind, he wavered and postponed action^ until action was
suddenly forced on him by a revolutionary outbreak which
well-nigh cost him his throne.

§ 6. The Nika Revolt (a.d. 532)

The famous rising at Constantinople, wMch occurred in the
first month of a.d. 532 and wrecked the city, was the result of
widely prevailing discontent with the administration, but it
began with a riot of the Hippodrome factions which in ordinary
circumstances would have been easily suppressed.^ We saw

^ John Lyclus {ih. 69), who says that
Justinian was deterred from maldng
a change because John had deliber-
ately, in order to ensure his per-
manent occupation of the post,
introduced such confusion into the
book-keeping that a successor would
have found it almost impossible
to carry on the administration.

2 contemporary sources are
Procopius, B.P. i. 24 ; John Mai.
xviii. 473 sqq. and fr. 46, De im, ;
John Lyd. l)e m.ag. iii. 70 ; Marcel-
linus, Ghron.f sub a. (also notices,
not very important, in Zacharias Myt.
ix, 4, Victor Tonn. sub a. ; Theodore
Lector in Cramer, A?iecd, Par. ii. 112).
The narrative of Maialas w^as originally
much fuller than in the abbreviated
text which 'we possess, but the missing
parts can be largely supplied from
Chron. Pascli. and Thooi^hanes, ’where
we find many details for which it
can be shown that Malalas was the
source, as well as some derived from
elsewLere (cp. the analysis in Bury,
The Nika Eiot, 98 sqq.). The short

notice of Marcellinus is important.
The Illyiuan Marcellinus had been the
caTiceUarius in the official staff of
Justinian when he was Master of
Soldiers. Before 527 he retired and
became a priest. His chronicle, in
its first form, reached the year 518,
but afterwards he brought it down
to 534. His personal relations to
Justinian make it probable that his
account of the revolt represents it
in the light in which the court desired
it to bo viewed. The pojjiilar dis-
satisfaction which made the rising
possible is entirely ignored, and the
whole movement is explained as a
conspiracy organised by the nej^hews
of Anastasius, who appear as the
prime movers. It must, of course,
be remembered that wiien Mareel-
linus ’wrote, c. 534, it was impossible
to refer to the ox)pressions of John
the Capp)adocian, who w^as then in
office, John Lydus ignores the con-
spiracy and the elevation of Hypatius,
and represents the unpopularity of
the Prefect as the sole cause of

HISTORY OF TEE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

how Justinian in Ms uncle’s reign patronised the Blues and made
use of them as a political support. But when he was safely
seated on the throne.j he resolved no longer to tolerate the licence
of the factions, from the consequences of which he had formerly
protected the Blues. Immediately after his accession he laid
injunctions on the authorities in every city that the disorders
and crimes of the factions should be punished impartially.^

A number of persons belonging to both factions had been
arrested for a riot in which there had been loss of life. Eiidaemon,
the Prefect of the City, held an inquiry, and finding seven of
the prisoners guilty of murder, he condemned four to be beheaded
and three to be hanged. But in the case of two the hangman
blundered and twice the bodies fell, still alive, to the ground.
Then the monks of St. Conon, which was close to the place of
execution, interfered, and taking up the two criminals, one of
whom w^as a. Blue, the other a Green, put them in a boat and
rowed them across the Golden Horn to the asylum of the church
of St. Laurentius.^ The Prefect, on hearing what had occurred,
sent soldiers to guard the church.^

The ides of January fell three days later (Tuesday), and,
according to custom, horse races 'were held in the Hippodrome,
and the Emperor was present. Both the Blues and the Greens
importuned the Emperor wdth loud prayers to show mercy to
the two culprits who had been rescued by accident from the
gallows. No answer was accorded, and at the t'wenty-second
race the spectators were amazed to hear the unexpected ex-
clamation, Long live the humane Greens and Blues ! ” The
cry announced that the two parties would act in concert to
force the government to grant a pardon, and it is probable that
their leaders had previously arranged to co-operate, ‘^flien the
races were over, the factions agreed on a watchword, mlm,
conquer,” and the rising which followed wars known as tlie

the revolt. For modern studies of perhaps the day of the curious scene
the Mka see Bibliography, under which occurred between the Emperor
Schmidt, AV. A., and Kalligas. Cp. and the Greens, and is rec(.)rded by
Hodgkiti, /fe/y, iii. 618 .9^0'. ; Eanke, Theophanes (cp. Oliron. P ascii.), if
Tfe%esc/ 2 ic/de, ii. 2, pp. 23 syy. ; Diehl, the chronicler is right in associating
Justinlen, 462 sqq, it with the Nika" riot. But it is

^ John Mai. xvii. 416. possible that the chrordcler is mis-

^ T. . taken, and in any case the subject

St. Conon was in the 13th Region, Qf conversation has no a])pareni
across the Cpiiden Horn. St. Laur- connexion with the sedition. 1 have
entms was close to Blachernae. therefore transferred it to an Ap-

* Jan. 11 (Sunday). This was pendix (below, p. 71).

THE NIKA REmm

Nika Revolt. Tlio united factions were known for tke time as
the Green-Blues {Pmsino-veneioi),

* In the evening the mob of rioters assembled at the Praetorium
and demanded from the Prefect of the City what he intended
to do with the refugees in St. Laurentius. No answer was given,
and the rioters broke into the prison, released the criminals who
were confined in it, killed some of the officials, and set fire to
the building, which was partly burned. Elated by success they
rushed eastward to the Augusteum and committed graver acts
of incendiarism. They fired the Chalke, the entrance of the
Great Palace, and not only was this consumed, but the flames
spread northward to the Senate-house and the church of St.
Sophia. These buildings were burned do wn.^

On the following morning (Wednesday, January 14) the
Emjperor ordered the races to be renewed. But the Blues and
Greens were not in the humour for witnessing races. They set
on fire the buildings at the northern end of the Hippodrome,
and the conflagration destroyed the neighbouring baths of
Zeiixippus with the portico of the Augusteum. It is probable
that on this occasion Justinian did not appear in the Kathisma,
or face the multitudes who were now clamouring in the Hippo-
drome, no longer interceding for the fives of the two wretches
who had escaped the hangman, but demanding that three
unpopular ministers should be deprived of their offices. The
demonstration was directed against Eiidaemon, Prefect of the
City, Tribonian the Quaestor, and John of Cappadocia, and the
situation had become so serious that the Emperor decided to
yield.2 Tryphon was appointed Prefect of the City, Basilides
Quaestor, and Phocas, a man of the highest probity, was per-
suaded to undertake the office of Praetorian Prefect.

These concessions would probably have satisfied the factions
and ended the trouble, like similar concessions in previous
reigns, if the decision had depended solely on the leaders of
the Blues and Greens. But the movement now wore an aspect
totally drflerent from that of the previous day. We saw how
the city had been filled by throngs of miserable country folk

^ On the order of the different Emperor by Basilides, . Mundns, and
conflagrations during the sedition see Constantiolus, who had issued from
Bury, oj). ciL 114 sqq, the Palace and addressed the multi-

tude, asking them what they wanted.

2 The demands were reported to the Chron. Pasch,; cp. John Mai 476,

42 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

from the ]}rovinces who had been ruined by the fiscal administra-
tion of the Praetorian Prefect and were naturally animated by
bitter resentment against the Emperor and the government.
It was inevitable that they should take part in the disturbances ; ^
it was at least a good opportunity to compass the fall of the
detested Cappadocian ; and the riot thus assumed the character
and proportions of a popular rising. But there w’-ere other forces
in the background, forces wdiich aimed not merely at a refonn
of the administration, but at a change in the dynasty. The
policy of Justinian in seeking to make his power completely
independent of the Senate and the Imperial Council had caused
deep animosity in the senatorial class, and the disaffected senators
seized the opportunity to direct the rising against the throne.-
We must attribute to the secret agitation of these men and
their agents the fact that the removal of the obnoxious ministers,
especially of John, failed to pacify the people.

The plan was to set on the throne one of the nephews of
Anasfcasius, unfortunate victims of their kinship to an Emperor.
For we must acquit them of any ambitious designs of their own.
They had been well treated by Justin and Justinian, and their
only desire was to live in peace. Pompeius and Hypatius were
out of the reach of the insurgents ; they and many other senators
were with Justinian in the Palace. It was therefore decided
to proclaim Probus Emperor, and the mob rushed to his house.
But they did not find him, for, fearing what might happen, he
had left the city. In their angry disappointment they burned
his house.

It was assuredly high time for the Emperor to employ military
force to restore order. But the Palace guards, the Scholarians
and Excubitors, were unwilling to do anything to defend the
throne. They had no feeling of personal devotion to Justinian,
and they decided to do nothing and await events. Eortunately
for Justinian there happened to be troops of a more irregular
kind in the city, and twm loyal and experienced commanders.

^ Tins is brought out in the account init. ; ep. Zach. ]\ryt. ix. 14).
ofJohnLydus. The agitation against

John marks the change from, the ^ Marcelliuus, s,a.: utm plerisque
faction riot to the popular sedition, nohilmm comuraVis, and tlio fact
The quarrel of the Blues was with the comes out in the narrative of Pr(j-
Prefect of the City. John had always co.pius. The conspirators took care
posed demonstratively as a lover of that the peoiJe should be su])plied
the Blue party (John Lyd. in. 62 ad with arms (£6.).

THE NIKA REVOLT

BelisariuSj who as Master of Soldiers in the East had been con-
ducting the war against Persia, had recently been recalled, and
h^ had in his service a considerable body of armed retainers,
chiefly of Gothic ^ race. Mundus, a general who had done good
service in the defence of the Danube, was also in the capital
with a force of Heruls. But all the soldiers on whom the Emperor
could count can hardly have reached the number of 1500.

It was perhaps on Thursday (January 15) ^ that Belisarius rode
forth at the head of Goths and Heruls to suppress the revolution.
There was a battle, possibly in the Augusteimi ; many were
killed ; but the soldiers were too few to wun a decisive victory, and
the attack only exasperated the people. The clergy, it may be
noted, seem to have made some vain attempts to restore order. ^

During the two following days there was desultory street
fighting, and another series of conflagrations. On Friday the
mob again set fire to the Praetorium, which had only been partly
damaged, but there was a strong north wind which blew the
flames away from the building. They also set fire to the baths
of Alexander, and the same wind carried the conflagration to
the neighbouring hospice of Eubulus and hence to the church
of St. Irene and the hos|)ice of Sampson. On Saturday there
was a conflict between the soldiers and the insurgents in the
street which led northward from Mddle Street to the Basilica
and the quarter of Chalkoprateia.^ It would appear that some
of the mob had occupied the Octagon, a building close to the
Basilica, and the soldiers set it on fire. The same fatal north
wind was blomng, and the flames, w^afted southwards, spread to
the church of St. Theodore Sphoracius and to the palace of
Lausus, which was consumed with all its treasures, and thence
raged along Middle Street, in the direction of the Forum of
Constantine, destroying the colonnades and the church of St.
Aquilina.^ We can imagine how great must have been the alarm

^ John MaL 475 f/.€Tk irX'i^Bovs
TotOlkov (ep. Procopius, B.P. i. 24.
40). For the practice of kee|>mg
private bands of retainers see above,
Chap. ii. § 2, p, 43.

- Or perhaps on \Fednesday. See
Buiy, 107.

s This comes from Zonaras, xiy. 6.
14, who also mentions that women
took part in the disorders (id. 16).

On Ms source cp. Sauerbrei, Re font,
Zon. qtiaest, 77,

^ On the topography see op,

cit, 11 sqq,; Bieiiaev, Kkram Bog.

; Krasnosertsev, Zamietlca po
voprosu o miestopol. Khalh. Kkrama
(Lietopis ist.-pliil. obshcliestva of
Odessa, Viz. otd. ii. 1894), 309 sqq.

® Tbeophanes connects the burning
of the Praetorium with this conflagra-
tion, but see Bury, op. cit. 116-117,

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

in the Palace, which was almost in a state of siege.^- Justiniaii
could not trust Ms guards, and he had strong and not unjustified
susjricions that many of the senators who^ surrounded Min wdte
traitors. Fearing their treachery, he ordered them all to leave
the Palace on Saturday at mghtfall,^ except a few like John
the Cappadocian, whose loyalty was certain or whose interests
were bound up with Ms own. He particularly suspected Hy-
patius and Ponipeius, and when they protested against deserting
him, Ms suspicions only grew stronger, and he committed the
blunder of dismissing them.

On Sunday morning (January 18 ) the Emperor made an
effort in person to pacify the people. He appeared in the
Kathisma of the Hippodrome with a copy of the Gospels in Ms
hands, and a large crowd assembled. He swore on the holy
book that he would grant an amnesty without any reservations
and comply with the demands of Ms subjects. But the great
part of the crowd was bitterly hostile. They cried, You are
perjuring yourself,” ^ and You wmuld keep this oath to us as
you kept your oath to Vitalian.” And there were shouts of
“ Long live Hypatius ! ” Meanwhile it had become known that
the nephew^s of Anastasius had left the Palace. The j)eople
thronged to the house of Hypatius, and in spite of Ms own
reluctance and the entreaties of his wife Maria, wLo cried that
he was being taken to Ms death, carried him to the Forum of
Constantine, where he was crowned with a golden chain wu?eathed
like a diadem.

A council was then held by Hypatius and the senators w^ho
were supporting Ms cause.^ Here we can see clcaiiy that the
insurrection was guided and fomented by men of high position
w’-ho were determined to overthrow Justinian. The question
was debated whether the Palace should be attacked immediately.
One of the senators, Origen, advised delay. He proposed tliat
the new Emperor should occupy for the moment one of the

^ It may be conjectured that a after Justinian’s a]')poarancc in tlie
shortage of food and water was Hippodrome on Sunday. See Bury,
feared in the Palace ; for after the 108.

the revolt Justinian ® Cliron. Pascli. iiriopKeh, o'yavoapi,
constructed cisterns and a granary It has been proposed to read yauoapt
close to the Palace, in order to have and explain it as = 7 «( 5 ap 6 , ‘‘ ass.*’
supplies in emergencies, John ^lal 477. ^ Procopius, ib. § 25, speaks as if all

2 Procopius, ib. 40. Oliron. Pasch. the senators, v'ho v'erc not in the
places the dismissal of the senators Palace, were present.

THE NIKA REVOLT

smaller Imperial palaces^ and prosecute the war against Ms
rival with deliberation, leaving nothing to chance. But his
advice did not prevail, and Hypatius, who was himself in favour
of prompt action, proceeded to the Hippodrome and was installed
in the Kathisma. The insurgents crowded the huge building
in dense masses, and reviled Justinian and Theodora.^

In the meantime, another council was being held in the Palace.
The situation seemed desperate. To many, including the
Emperor himself, there seemed no resource but escape by sea.
John the Cappadocian recommended flight to Heraclea, and
Belisarius agreed. TMs course would have been adopted had
it not been for the intervention of the Empress Theodora, whose
indomitable courage mastered the wavering spirits of her husband
and his councillors. A writer, who may well have heard the
scene described by Belisarius Mmself, professes to reproduce
her short speech, and even his sopMsticated style hardly spoils
the effect of her vigorous words :

The present occasion is, I think, too grave to take regard of the
convention that it is not meet for a woman to speak among men. Those
whose dearest interests are exposed to extreme danger are justified in
thinking only of the wisest course of action. Now in my opinion, on the
present occasion, if ever, flight is inexpedient even if it should bring us
safety. It is impossible for a man, when he has come into the world,
not to die ; but for one who has reigned it is intolerable to be an exile.
May I never exist without this purple robe and may I never live to see
the day on which those who meet me shall not address me as ‘‘ Queen.” ^
If 3 ^ou wish, 0 Emperor, to save yourself, there is no difficulty ; we have
ample funds. Yonder is the sea, and there are the ships. Yet reflect
whether, when you have once escaped to a place of security, you will not
prefer death to safety. I a^gree with an old saying that Empire is a fair
wiiidiiig-slicet.” ^

Tlieodora’s dauntless energy communicated itself to her
hearers, and they resolved to remain and fight.

In the Hippodrome it was believed that they had already
fled. Hypatius, we are told, still doubtful of his chances of
success, had secretly sent a message to the Palace, advising
Justinian to attack the people crowded in the Hippodrome.
Ephraem, the messenger, gave the message to Thomas, an Imperial

^ Two are mentioned 0-6. § 30), * ® AecriroLva.

Plaeijllanae and Helena. ^ KaXov €i’ri<piQv ij /SacrtXaa iarL,

J5.P. ?’6. 33-38. The phrase comes
“ CJiron. PascJi. : cj). Cramer, Hjiecd from Isocrates, Arcliulamos, § 45 Ka\6v
Par. ii. 320. icrrip ii^rd^Lov ^ rvpawis.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

secretary, wlio, ignorantly or designedly, informed Hm that
Justinian had taken to flights Ephraem proclaimed the news
in the Hippodrome, and Hypatius now played the Imperial
part with confidence, but the people were soon undeceived.

Justinian sent out a trusted eunuch, named Narses, with a
well-filled purse to sow dissensions and attempt to detach the
Blue faction from the rebellion.^ He could insinuate that
Hypatius, like his uncle, would be sure to protect their rivals
the Greens, and remind them of the favour which Justinian
had showTi them in time past and of the unwavering goodwill
of Theodora. While Narses fulfilled this mission, Belisarius and
Mmidus prepared to attack. At first Belisarius thought it
would be feasible to reach the Kathisma directly from the
Palace and pluck the tyrant from his throne. But the way
lay through a building occupied by a portion of the guards,
and they refused to let him pass.^ The Emperor then ordered
him to lead his troops, as best he could, through the ruins of
the Chalke into the Aiigusteum. With great difficulty, climbing
through the debris of half -burnt buildings, they made their
way roimd to the western entrance of the Hippodrome and
stationed themselves just inside, at the portico of the Blues,
which was immediately to the right of the Kathisma.^ In order

^ Thomas was a pagan and was
possibly disloyal. The episode is
related in Chron. Pascli. and came
from, Malalas.

2 John Mai. 470. Procopius does
not mention this incident. Narses, a
Persarmenian, was rauta? r(uv

')lp7jixar<jov since a.d. 530 {Pro-
copius, B,T, i. It5. 31, cp. B.G, ii.
14. 16). At this time he was not
Praepositiis s. cub,, a post which he
afterwards filled (between 540 and
552), see GJ,L. vi. 1199. The same
financial post was held by Rusticus
.in 554 (seo Agatliias, iii. 2), but I
cannot agree ^vith Stein that this
was an extraordinary post, existent
only ill time of 'war, and officially
named comes s. largitiouum [Studien,
163 sqq,),

^ We have no clear knowledge as
to the communications hotweeii the
Palace and the Hippodrome in the
sixth century. Wo have more in-
formatitm about the arrangements
existing in the ninth and tenth, but
there must have been considei'able

changes in the meantime. The Em-
perors always reached the Kathis-
ma from the Daphne portion of the
Palace by a winding stair, KocUias
(which must, however, be distinguished
from the Kocklias leading to'^a gate
by which Mundus left the Palace,
Procop. ib. § 43). If Belisarius hoped
to reach Hypatius by this way, ive
must suppose that there was a guard-
room at the top of the staircase, in
the Katliisma structure, for we know
that the Dapline buiidings, in which
there was no room for guai’ds, adjoined
the walls of the Hi[)podrojne. But
there may have been at this time
a direct communieai ion between Ihc
of the Hippodrome north of tlie
Kathisma and the cjuarters of tlie
guards north oi Dapime ; and tliis
seems the most probable expiunation.

Procopius, ib. § 40. Heo above,
Vol. I. Chap. III. p. SI. This jiassage
shows concdusively that there was a
western entrance to the Hif^podroine,
close to the Kathisma. It is possible
that the Nekra gate by whirh Muudus

THE NIKA REVOLT

to gain access to the Kathisma itself , it would have been necessary
to pass through a small gate on the left, which was shut and
gmarded. If Belisarius attempted to force this gate, his men
would have been exposed to an attack from the crowd in the
rear. He therefore determm to charge the people. He drew
his sword and gave the word. Though many of the populace
had arms, there was no room in the dense throng to attempt an
orderly resistance, and confronted by the band of disciplined
soldiers the mob was intimidated and gave way. Moreover
there w^ere dissensions among them, for the bribes of Narses had
not been fruitless. They were cut down without mercy, and
then Mundus appeared with his Heruls to help Belisarius in the
work of slaughter. Mundus had left the Palace by another
way, and he now entered the Hippodrome by a gate known as
Nekra. The insurgents were between two fires, and there was
a great carnage. It was said that the number of the slain
exceeded 30,000.^

Two nephews of Justinian, Boraides and Justus, then entered
the Kathisma without meeting resistance.^ They seized Hypatius,
who had witnessed the battle from his throne, and secured
Pompeius, who was with him. The brothers were taken into
the Palace, and, notwithstanding the tears of Pompeius and
the pleadings of Hypatius that he had acted xmder compulsion,^
they were executed on the following day and their bodies w^ere
cast into the sea. The Emperor, suspicious though he was,
probably believed that they were not morally guilty, but feared

entered was on the same side, near
the soxitli end, rather than on the
eastern side, as has been generally
supposed. We might infer from
Procopius that when Belisarius and
his troops forced their way into the
Hippodrome, Mundus and his Heruls
stationed themselves just outside the
same (main) entrance {7r\7jaiov ttov
eo■T^|l:Cos MoPi'oos), and when the
fighting began went to the Nekra. On
tiie other iiand, Mundus seems to have
been awaiting the action of Belisarius
on the eastern side, for he left the
Palace by a gate where there was a
winding descent (Procop. ib. § 43) —
evidently an issue on the south of the
Daphne, wliere there was a fail in
the gj’ouiid. It is therefore more
natund to su|.tpuse that the Nekra,
by which he entered the Hippodrome,

was on the same side.

^ Procopius, “more than 30,000,”
and John Mai. “ 3o,000 more or less,”
roughly agree. John Lyd. gives an
exaggerated figure, 50,000 ; Zonaras,
40,000.

2 Procopius, § 53. Acc. to John
Mai. 470, it was Belisarius who
arrested the tv\o brothers.

^ Procopius contrasts the Aveakness
of Pompeius with the more digniiied
tone of Hypati us. Ace. to John M.aL
they urged that they had deliber-
ately collected the erovvl in the
Hippodrome, in order to facilitate
the suppression of tlie rising. Jus-
tinian ironically ol^scrved, “ If j^ou
had such infiuenee Avith. the insurgents,
why did you not hinder them from
burning down the city ? ”

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

that they would be used as tools in future conspiracies. They
were too dangerous to be allowed to live, but their children
vwere'spared.;;;'','' . ; ® '■ '■■■■

The throne of Justinian was saved through the moral energy
of Theodora and the loyal efforts of Belisarius. It was not
only saved, but it rested now on firmer foundations, for it gave
the Emperor the opportunity of taking vigorous measures to
break down the opposition of the senatorial nobles to his auto-
cracy. There were no more executions, but eighteen senators
who had taken a leading part in the conspiracy were punished
by the confiscation of their property and banishment.^ At a
later time, when he felt quite secure, Justinian pardoned them
and restored to them any of their possessions which he had not
already bestowed on others, and a similar restitution was even
made to the children of Hypatius and Pompeius.

The news of the Emperor’s victory over his enemies and the
execution of the usurper was proclaimed in the cities throughout
the Empire. For a long time after this event the factions of
the Hippodrome seem to have been on their good behaviour,
if we may judge by the silence of the chroniclers. During the
last twenty years of the reign riots and faction fights occurred
from time to time, but the rival parties did not combine again
and the disorders were easily put down.^

§ 6. /S^. Sofhia

After the suppression of this formidable rebellion, one of
the first anxieties of the Emperor was to set about rebuilding
the edifices which had been destroyed by fire, above all the
church of St, Sophia. He was sitting amidst ruin and devastation,

^ The number 18 is in John Mai. Prefect of the City, duo to a famine
fr. 46, De ins, and Gliron. PascJi. ; which lasted for three months; the
Procojhus says generally awdvrwp leaders of the Blues were seized and
{^6. § 57). If 18 is correct, Procopius punished {ib. 488). In May 559 there
must have exaggerated either here were conflicts between the Blues and
or ib. § 25 ; but the latter passage is Greens for two days, and the disorder
borne out by Marcellinus {plerisqm was accompanied by incendiarism ;
nohilium). the house of Peter Barsymes the

2 In 547 the factions quarrelled, Praet. Prefect was burnt, and the
and the disturbance was suppressed intervention of the Exciibitors was
by the Exciibitors with some blood- necessary (ib. 490). Other disturb-
shed (John Mai. xviii. 483). Biots ances are recorded in 502 (?‘6. 492) and
are recorded in 548 and 551 (ib. 484). 568 (Theophanes, a.m. 0055), and

In May 556 there was a more serious (without date) in John Mai frs. 50
popular demonstration against the and 51, De ins.

THE CHURCH OF ST, SOPHIA

and it would be natural if he had thought of nothing but restoring
the wrecked buildings as rapidly as was possible ; but he saw
in file calamity an opportunity for making his capital more
magnificent; and constructing a church which would be the
wonder of the world. The damage might well have been made
^ good in two years if he had been content to rebuild on the same
scale ; the work he designed took five years, and considering
what was accomplished the time seems incredibly short.

Forty days after the tumult had subsided, the ruins of the
church were cleared away, neighbouring houses were bought up,
and space was provided for a new temple of the Divine Wisdom.
The plans were prepared by Anthemius of Tralles, an architect
and engineer who possessed imagination as well as mastery of
his craft, and to him was entrusted the direction of the work,
with Isidore of Miletus as his assistant. It is to be noted that
both these architects were natives of Asia Minor. We cannot
doubt that Anthemius had already given proofs of his slrill as a
builder, and it is not bold to conjecture that he was the archi-
tect of the church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus, which Justinian
and Theodora had caused to be erected at the beginning of their
reign. * Justinian had extended the precincts of the Great Palace
to take in the house of Hormisdas — on the seashore, south of the
Hippodrome — which had been his residence before he ascended
the throne ; and close to it he built two churches side by side
with a common court, a basilica of SS. Peter and Paul, which
has disappeared,^ and the octagonal domed church of SS. Sergius
and Bacchus, which has survived, converted by the Turks into
a mosque which they call the Little St. Sophia. The names of
the Emperor and Empress are associated in the metrical in-
scription which is still to be seen on the frieze and their mono-
grams can be read on the beautiful melon capitals. Modern
architects have paid tribute to the remarkable skill with which
the dome has been buttressed and weighted, and we may divine
that it was the skill of Anthemius, of whom a contemporary
said that he designed wonderful works both in the city and
in many other places which would suffice to win him everlasting
glory in the memory of men so long as they stand and endure.” ^
His plan of St. Sophia was different. It is a Greek cross

^ Van Miliingen, Byz. Churches^ 62 sqq. The church was founded in 527.

2 Agatliias, EisL v. 8.

HISTORY OF THE LATEn ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

(about 250 by 225 feet) with a dome rising above the quadrilateral
space between the arms to the height of 180 feet. He undertook
to solve the problem of placing a great aerial cupola^ 100 feet in
diameter j over this space which was 100 feet square. Hitherto
cupolas had been set over round spaces. At each angle of the
square Anthemius erected a massive pier, in which the settings ^
of the stones were strengthened by special methods. These
piers supported the four arches and pendentives on which the
ribbed dome rested, and he calculated on securing stability
by the semi-domes on the east and west and buttresses on the
north and south. To diminish the weight of the dome very
light materials were used, tiles of a white spongy earth manu-
factured at Ehodes.^

The material of St. Sophia, as of most Byzantine churches,
was brick. Its exterior appearance, seen from below, does not
give a true impression of its dimensions. The soaring cxipola
is lost and buried amid the surromding buttresses that were
added to secure it in later ages. From afar one can realise its
proportions, lifted high above all the other buildings and dominat-
ing the whole city like a watch-tower, as Procopius described it.
But in it, as in other Byzantine churches, the contrast between
the plahmess of the exterior and the richness of the interior
decoration is striking. Although the mosaic pictures, including
the great cross on a starry heaven at the summit of the dome,

^ It has been a subject of debate Hadrian’s Villa the idea of a dome
whether the architects of the sixth of which the surface is a rhythmic
century, in their dome constructions, secj[uence of flat and concave sections
derived their inspiration from the unsupported by pendentives, simply
East, or were simply working along flush with the course of the drum
the lines of Roman architectural from which the}- start (p. SI),
tradition and adopting suggestions Further, he holds that the visible
from Roman models. Rivoira has radiating ribs with which Isidore
conjectured that Anthemius (whose provided the dome of St. So])hia,
brother Alexander was a physician when he rest(5red it, 'were suggested
at Rome, Agathias, loc, eit.) had by the Mausoleum Augustorum, a
visited Rome and picked up ideas building (of fifth century) consisting
there. He calls attention {Lomha/rMo of two rotundas, of one'of which (it
Arch. i. p. 79) to the family likeness survived tiii the sixteenth century)
between the plan of St. Sophia “ and a sketch has been preserved (pp. S2*
the two halis^of the Baths of Agrippa 83). Strzygo-wski, on the other hand,
and JXero as well as the Basilica Nova contends that the origin of domed
of Maxentins and Constantine.” He churches was oriental, and in one
also notes (with Choisy) the resem- of his latest works he particularly
blance of SS. »Sergius and Bacchus with connects it with Armenia (Die
the Licinian Nymphaeum ; and he Bauhmst der Armemer vnd Europif
thinks the designer of that church 2 vols., 1918),
derived from the Serapeum of

THE CHURCH OF ST, SOPHIA

are now concealed from the eyes of faithful Moslems by white-
wash, the marbles of the floor, the walls, and the pillars show
u^tliat the rapturous enthusiasm of Justinian’s contemporaries
as to the total efiect of the' decoration was "not excessive. The
roof was covered with pure gold, but the beauty of the effect lay,
it was observed, rather in the answering reflexions from the
marbles than from the gold itself. The marbles from which
were hewn the pillars and the slabs that covered the walls and
floor were brought from all quarters of the world. There was
the white stone from the quarries in the Proconnesian islands
near at hand, green cipollino from Carystus in Euboea, verde
antico from Laconia and Thessaly, J^umidian marble glinting
with the gold of yellow crocuses, red and white from Caria, white-
misted rose from Phrygia, porphyry from Upper Egypt. To
Procopius the building gave the impression of a flowering meadow.

While the artists of the time showed sldll and study in blending
and harmonising colours, the sculptured decoration of the curves
of the arches with acanthus and vine tendrils, and the beauty
of the capitals of white Proconnesian marble, are not less wonder-
ful. The manufacture of capitals for export had long been
an industry at Constantinople, and we can trace the evolution
of their forms. The old Corintliian cajrital, altered by the
substitution of the thorny for the soft acanthus, had become
what is known as the “ Theodosian ” capital.^ But it was found
that this was not suitable for receiving and supporting the arch,
and the device was introduced of placing above it an inter-
mediary impost,” in the form of a truncated and reversed
pyramid, which was usually ornamented with vine or acanthus,
a cross or a monogram. Then, apparently early in the sixth
century, the Theodosian capital and the impost were combined
into a single block, the capital impost,” which assumed many
varieties of form.^

The building was completed in a.d. 537, and on December 26
the Emperor and the Patriarch Menas drove together from
St. Anastasia to celebrate the inaugural ceremonies.^ But
Anthemius had been overbold in the execution of his architectural
design, and had not allowed a suflflcient margin of safety for the

^ An example is preserved in tlie /S'op/m, 247 5^(2'. ; Dielil, 128;

fifth-century churcli of St. John of and cp. Kivoira, op. cit i. 128.
Studion.

- See Lethaby and Swainson, S, ® Theophanes, a.m. 6030.

52 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROM AM EMPIRE chap.

support of the dome. Twenty years later the dome came crasliing
down, destroying in its fall the amho and the altar (May, A.n. 658).^
Anthemius was dead, and the restoration was undertaken fey
Isidore the Younger. He left the semi-domes on the east and
west as they were, hut widened the arches on the north and
south, making 'Hhe equilateral symmetry ’’ more perfect, and
raised the height of the dome by more than twenty feet. The
work was finished in a.d. 562, and on Christmas Eve the Emperor
solemnly entered it. The poet Paul, the silentiary, was com-
manded to celebrate the event in verse, and a few days later ^
he recited in the Palace the proem of his long poem describing ^
the beauties of the church. Justinian then proceeded in solemn
procession to St. Sophia, and in the Patriarch’s palace, which
adjoined the church, he recited the rest. It was a second in-
auguration, and the effort of Paul was not unworthy of the
occasion.

Terrible, thought a writer of the day, as well as marvellous,
the dome of St. Sophia seems to float in the air.” It was
pierced by forty windows, the half-domes by five, and men were
impressed by the light which flooded the church, “ You would
say that sunlight grew in it.” Lavish arrangements w^ere made
for artificial illumination for the evening services. A central
chandelier was suspended by chains from the cornice round the
dome over the ambo ; the poet compared it to a circular dance
of lights :

evcreXdcov Be

f€v/c\t09 i/c <j)ae 0 p LG-rarai,

And in other parts of the building there were rows of lamps in
the form of silver bowls and boats.

Justinian did not regard expense in decorating with gold and
precious stones the ambo which stood in the centre under the
dome. Similar siimptiiousness distinguished the saiictuaiy of
‘‘the apse — the iconostasis and the altar which was of solid
gold. The Patriarch’s throne was of gilded silver and weighed

^ Agatliias, v. 9. John Mai. of indeixmdcnt sections this was
xviii. p. 489, “in the 6t.h indiction.” possible. See Jackson, Eyz. Archi-
Tlie^ follows Malalas, hut iechire, L ^1\

puts the notice under a wrong year, » Friediander (p. 110, Preface to
A.M. 6051, which would mean a.d. ed. of Paul) conjectures on Epi])hany,
559, The whole dome docs not seem Jan. 6. Paul, son of (Jjrns, 'was of
to have collapsed ; as it consisted good family and groat wealth.

XV:

THE CHURCH OF ST. SOPHIA

40,000 lbs. A late record states that the total cost of tbe build-
ing and furiiisliing of St. SopHa amounted to 320,000 lbs. of
gold, wliicli sent to our mint to-day would metm nearly fourteen
and a half million sterling,^ a figure which is plainly incredible.

But this, though it was the greatest item in the Emperor’s
expenditure on restoring and beautifying the city, was only one.
The neighbouring chui*ch of St. Irene also rose from its ashes, as
a great domed basilica, the largest church in Constantinople
except St. Sophia itself.^ The monograms of Justinian and
Theodora are still to be read on the capitals of its pillars. More
important as a public and Imperial monument was the Church
of the Holy Apostles in the centre of the city, which had not
been injured by fire, but had suffered from earthquakes and
was considered structurally unstable. Justinian pulled it down
and rebuilt it larger and more splendid, as a cruciform church
with four equal arms and five domes. Though it was destroyed
by the Turks to make room for the mosque of Mohammed the
Conqueror, descriptions are preserved which enable us to restore
its plan.^ San Marco at Venice was built on a very similar design
and gives the best idea of what it was like. It may have been
begun after the completion of St. Sophia, for it was dedicated
in A.D, 646 ; but the mosaic decoration, of which full accounts
have come down to us, was not executed till after Justinian’s
death, and it has been shown that these pictures, which may

^ The figure is given in the ALijyrjffts
wepl rij'S ay. So^tay, c. 25, p. 102 ;
it excludes the cost of the sacred
vessels and the numerous private
gifts. It is a curious coincidence
that the sum is identical with the
reserve saved by Anastasius (see
above, § 4, p. 36). Three hundred and
sixty-five lbs. of gold (c. £1,642,500)
were said to have been spent on the
ambo, ib. This narrative is marked
not only by miracles and obvious
fictions but by curious errors, such
as dating the beginning of the build-
ing of the church to A..D. 538. The
fabulous sum which the buildhig is
said to have cost might have been
reached if 10,000 workmen had been
continuously employed and received
the wages de luxe which Justinian is
said to have lavished on them
{ALi^yr}<ns, § 9 and § 20). It is
remarkable, however, that the com-

piler believed that his figures were
derived from an account of the
expenses kept by Strategius, who was
Count of the Sacred Largesses (as
we otherwise know) in 536-537 (on
the credibility of the document op.
Preger, X. 455 sgg.). Uspenski,
IsL viz. irnjy. i. 532, accepts the figures.
For a more trustworthy figure in
connexion with the building see
below, p. 55, n. 3. I should be
surprised if the total expenses
amounted to a million sterling. If
they were partly paid out of the
Private Estate, the confiscated pro-
perty of the rich senators concerned
in the rebellion would have gone a
long way.

2 See George, Ghiirch of 8t. Eirene.

® The history, plan, and mosaics of
the church are fully tx*eated in
Heisenberg’s work. Die Apostelkirche.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

belong to the time of his immediate snceessors, were designed
and selected with a dogmatic ': motif. '/The ; two natures of
Christ in one person are the theme of the whole cycle.” The
use of pictures for propagating theological doctrine was under-
stood in the sixth century ; we shall see another example at
EaA^enna.^

The principal secular buildings which had been destroyed by
the fires of the Nika riot and were immediately rebuilt were the
Senate-house, the baths of Zeuxippus, the porticoes of the
Aiigusteuin, and the adjacent parts of the Palace. The Chalke
had been burnt down, and the contiguous quarters behind it—
the portico of the Scholarian guards and the porticoes of the
Protectors and Candidates. All these had to be rebuilt.^ But
at the same time Justinian seems to have made extensive changes
and improvements throughout the Palace ; we are told that he
renovated it altogether.^ Of the details w^e hear nothing, except
as to the Chalke itself. You go through the great gate of the
Chalke from the Augusteum, and then through an inner bronze
gate into a domed rectangular room, decorated by mosaic pictures
showing the Vandal and Italian conquests, with Justinian and
Theodora in the centre, triumphing and surrounded by the
Senate.^

If the Emperor spent much on the restoration and improve-
ment of the Great Palace, he appears to have been no less laAdsh
in enlarging and embellishing his palatial villa at Herion, on the
peninsula which to-day bears the name of Phanaraki, to the
south-east of Chalcedon.^ It was the favourite resort of Theodora
ill summer; she used to transport her court there every year.'^
Here Justinian created a small town, with a splendid church

^ .’Heiaenberg, o'p. cit. p. 108.

2 Belo^v, Chap. XVIII. § 12.

^ Procopius, Aecl. i. 10. Op. Chron.
Pasch., avb 532.

^ Procopius, ib. 10 pia ph rcc
j^acriXeia crx^oop ti irdpra. I con-
jecture that Justiiiiaii may have
designed the Chrysotriclinos buildings,
and that Justin II., to whom they
are attributed in our sources, may
have only comjJeted them.

® Procopius, ib. The central dome
was sustained by four piers, and two
arches on the south and two on the
north, springing from the walls.

formed the vaulted ceilings north and
south of the dome.

^ The site has been fixed Ixyyond
dispute by Pargoire, Hieria. The
name of the peniiisuia took many
forms. In the time of Justinian it
was generally called Aepov or "11 /nor,
in the time of Heraclius Aepaa.,

’ Her courtiers did not all like the
change, if we can draw any inference
from the complaint of Procopius
that Theodora iulnntianiy ex])osed
them to the peiiis of the sea and that
they suffered from the lack of tlio
comforts thev enjoyed in the city.
H.A, 15. 30-37.

FALL OF JOHN THE CAPPADOCIAN

dedicated to the Mother of God, baths, market-places, and
porticoes ; and constructed a sheltered landing-place by building
twe?' large moles into the sea.^ ■

§ 7. The FrM of John the Cappadocian (a.b. 541)

The nine or ten years following the suppression of the Nika
revolt were the most glorious period of Justinian’s reign. He
was at peace with Persia ; Africa and Italy were restored to
Ms dominion. The great legal works which he had undertaken
were brought to a successful conclusion ; and Constantinople,
as we have just seen, arose from its ashes more magnificent
than ever. ,

But the period was hardly as happy for the subjects as it
was satisfactory to their ruler. For ^ a short time the fiscal
exactions under -which they had groaned may have been alleviated
under the milder administration of the popular Phocas, who
had succeeded the Cappadocian, and who at least had no thought
of using his office to enrich Mmself.^ But Phocas was soon
removed, probably because his methods failed to meet the
financial needs of the Emperor, engaged in preparations for
the African expedition and in plans for rebuilding the city on
a more splendid scale. In less than a twelvemonth John the
Cappadocian was once more installed in the Prefecture, and
was permitted for eight or nine years to oppress the provinces
of the East.’^ Justinian did not feel himself bound by the
promises he had made to the insurgents, seeing that they had
been made in vain. He also restored to the post of Quaestor

^ IProcopiiis, Aed. i. 11. The an mstructor. He is highly spoken
historian was perhaps thinking par- of by the Emperor in Nov. 82, § 1
tieiiiariy of the construction of this (539).

port when he was writing, B.A. 8. ^ John Mai., ib. 477, dates John’s

7-8, as Pargoire suggests (op. aXp. 58). restoration to 532. We know from

2 Phocas, son of Craterus, was of Procopius, F. i. 10 and 13, that he
good family and well off. He began was Prefect before June 533. He
as a silentiary in the Palace. He fell in the tenth year of his Prefecture
had been jjrosecuted as a pagan in (H.P. i 25. 3), and as his fall can be
529 (John Mai. xviii. 449, where it fixed to May 541 (see below), Pro-
is falsely said that he was put to copius seems to count as if his two
death). See the panegyric of John tenures of office had been continuous.
Lydiis (iii. 70 .9f/-7.), where his liberality Phocas held the Prefecture long
and personal frugality are praised, enough to furnish 4000 lbs. of gold
Wheii he became Prefect he set (£288,000) towards the building of
himself to learn Latin, and John St. Sophia (John Lyd. ib. 76), but
Lydus procured Imn the services of for less than a year (Proc. H.M 21.7),

56 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

tlie great jurist Tribonian, wbo, otherwise most fitted to adorn
the office, seems to have been somewhat unscrupulous in indulging
his leading passion, a love of money.

The only person whom John the Cappadocian feared was the
Empress. He knew that she was determined to ruin Mm. He
was unable to undermine her influence with Justinian, but that
influence did not go far enough to shake Justinian’s confidence
in him. He dreaded that her emissaries might attempt to
assassinate Mm, and he kept around him a large band of armed
retainers, a measure to wMch no Praetorian Prefect except
Eufinus had resorted before. He was exceedingly superstitious,
and impostors who professed to foretell the future encouraged
him in the hope that he would one day sit on the Imperial
throne. In a.d. 538 he enjoyed the expensive honour of the
consulship.^

If there was one man whom John detested and envied it
was the general Belisarius, who in a.i>. 540 arrived at Constanti-
nople, bringing the king of the Ostrogoths as a captive in his
train. If any man was likely to be a dangerous rival in a contest
for the throne, it was the conqueror of Africa and Italy, who
was as popular and Mghly respected as John himself was un-
popular and hated. As a matter of fact, thoughts of disloyalty
were far from the heart of Belisarius, but he was not always
credited with unswerving fidelity to Justinian, even by Justinian
Mmself.

Belisarius, like his master, was born in an Illyrian town,^
and, like his master, he had married a woman whose parents
were associated with the circus and the theatre and who was
the mother of cMldren before she married the soldier.^ Unlike
Theodora, she did not mend her morals after her marriage, and
her amours led to breaches with her husband. But notwith-
standing temporary estrangemeiits she preserved the affection

^ Fasti cons* (p. 56) : Flavius 1. 11. She is said to have been 60
Johannes. Cp, G.LL, vi. 32,042. years old in 544 (ib. iv. 41). She

^ Germania, on the borders of had borne a daugliter to Belisarius,
Ulyricuin and Thrace, Procop. B*V. Joannina. An illegitimate daughter
i. 11. 21. Op. the town of Germae married lidiger, an otlicer who was
(IVp/uar}) in Bardania {Aed, iv. L 31) ; prominent in the wars of the lime ;
Hieroclos, Synecd. 654. 5). and by another illegitimate child she

® Her father and grandfather were had a granddaughter who married
chariot-drivers, her mother a dis- Sergius, a nephew of Solomon tho
reputable actress {rdw tip os iv eunuch (see below, p, 145). For her
BvjjLiXr} TreTTopvevyivoov), Procop. H*A, son Photius see below, p. 60.

XV FALL OF JOHN THE CAPPADOCIAN 57

of lier husband, who had a weak side to his character, and
she faithfully accompanied him on his campaigns and worked
eifergetically in his interests. She often protected him, when
he was out of favour with the Emperor, through her influence
with Theodora, who found her. a useful ally and resourceful
agent.

The cunning of this unscrupulous woman compassed the fall
of John of Cappadocia. She was interested in destroying him
as the enemy both of her husband and of her Imperial mistress.
The only hope of damaging him irretrievably in the eyes of the
Emperor was to produce clear evidence that he entertained
treasonable designs, and for this purpose Antonina resorted to
the vile arts of an agent provocateur. The Prefect had a daughter,
his only child, whom he loved passionately ; it was the one
amiable trait in his repulsive character. His enemies could
cast no reproach on the virtue of Euphemia, but she was very
young and she fell an easy victim to the craft of Antonina. It
was in April or May a.b. 641 that the treacherous scheme was
executed. Belisarius had set out in the spring to take command
in the Persian war, and his wife had remained for a short time
at Constantinople before she followed hin?. to, the East. She
employed herself in cultivating the acquaintance of Euphemia,
and having fully won her friendship she persuaded the in-
experienced girl that Belisarius was secretly disaffected towards
Justinian. It is Belisarius, she said, who has extended the
borders of the Empire, and taken captive two kings, and the
Emperor has shown little gratitude for his services. Euphemia,
who, taught to see things through her father’s eyes, feared
Theodora and distrusted the government, listened sympathetically
to the confidences of her friend. “ Why,” she asked, '' does
Belisarius not use his power with the army to set things right ? ”
'' It would be useless,” said Antonina, to attempt a revolution
in the camp without the support of civilian ministers in the
capital. If your father were willing to help, it would be different.”
Euphemia eagerly undertook to broach the matter to her father.
John, when he heard his daughter’s communication, thought
that a way was opened for realising the vague dreams of power
which he had been cherishing. It was arranged that he should
meet Antonina secretly.- She was about to start for the East,
and she would halt for a night near Chalcedon at the palace

HISTORY OF TEE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

of Rufiiiianae^ wliicli belonged to her husband.^ Hither John
agreed to come secretly, and the day and hour were arranged.
Antonina then informed the Empress of all she had done aAd
the details of the scheme. It was essential that the treasonable
conversation should be overheard by witnesses, whose testimony
would convince Justinian. Theodora, who entered eagerly into
the plot, chose for this part the eunuch Narses, and Marcellus,
commander of the Palace guards, a man of the highest integrity,
who stood aloof from all political parties, and never, throughout
a long tenure of his command, forfeited the Emperor’s respect.^
Theodora did not wait for the execution of the scheme to tell
Justinian of what wns on foot, and it was said that he warned
John secretly not to keep the appointment. This may not be
true. In any case, John arrived at Rufinianae at midnight,
only taldng the precaution of bringing some of his armed retainers.
Antonina met him outside the house near a wall behind which
she had posted Marcellus and Narses. He spoke, without any
reserve, of plans to attempt the Emperor’s life. When he had
fully committed himself, Narses and Marcellus emerged from
their hiding-place to seize him. His men, who were not far off,
rushed up and one of them wounded Marcellus. In the fray
John succeeded in escaping, and reaching the city he sought
refuge in a sanctuary.'^ The historian who tells the tale thought
that if he had gone boldly to the Palace he would have been
pardoned by Justinian. But the Empress now had the Emperor’s
ear. John was deprived of the office which he had so terribly
abused and banished to Cyzicus, where he was ordained a deacon
against his will. His large ill-gained possessions were forfeited
as a matter of course, but the Emperor showed his weakness
for the man by letting Mm retain a considerable portion, which
enabled him to live in great luxury in his retirement.-^

But he was not long suffered to enjoy his exile in peace. The

^ At Jadi Bostaii (see above, Vol I. acter see Procopius, B.Q. iii, 32. 22.
p. 87). We do not know bow this ® ’Es rb Upov (B,P. L "2o. 30), where
Imperial residence passed into the pos- Haury conjectures that the words
session of Belisariiis. At ilavrElx^ov, roa Acti'perr/ou have falkni out.
near Clialcedon, evidently to be ^ All the details are derived from
identified with Pendik, Eelisariiis Procopius, i?.P. i. 25. In the sum-
had also a villa. See Pargoire, mary notice of John 3ial. xviii. 480
Miifuiknm, pp. 459, 477. (cp. Z)e his, p. 172), the date is given

“ It is uncertain whether he was as August. But Theodthus liad sue-
Count of the Excubitors or Comman- ceeded John as Prefect between 'May 7
der of the Scholariaiis, For his char- and June 1, 541 {Nov, 109 and III).

FALL OF JOHN THE CAPPADOCIAN

bishop of Cyzicus, Eusebius, was bated by the inhabitants.
They had preferred charges against him at Constantinople, but
his fnfluence there was so great that he was able to defy Cyzicus.
At last some young men, who belonged to the local circus factions,
murdered him in the market-place. As it happened that John
^and Eusebius were enemies, it was suspected that John was
accessory to the crime, and, considering his reputation, the
susihcion was not unnatural Senators were sent to Cyziciis to
investigate the murder. John’s guilt was not proved ; ^ but the
commission of inquiry must have received secret orders to
punish him rightly or wrongly, for he was stripped and scourged
like a common highwayman, and then put on board ship, clad
ill a rough cloak. The ship bore him to Egypt, and on the voyage
he was obliged to support life by begging in the seaports at
which it called. When he reached Egypt he was imprisoned
at Antinoopolis. For these illegal proceedings the Emperor, we
may be sure, was not responsible, and no private enemy could
have ventured to resort to them. The hand of Theodora could
plainly be discerned. But she was not yet satisfied with his
punishment ; she desired to have him legally done to death.^
Some years later she got into her power tivo young men of the
Green faction who were said to have been concerned in the
murder of the bishop. By promises and threats she sought to
extract a confession implicating John the Cappadocian. One
of them yielded, but the other, even imder torture, refused.
Baffled in her design she is said to have cut ofi the hands of
both the youths.^ John remained in prison till her death, after
which he was allowed by the Emperor to return to Constantinople,
a free man, but a priest. Yet it was said that he still dreamed
of ascending the throne.*^

^ 0i» €^e\i]\€yKTO. Procop. ib.

Theodora’s name is not mentioned
in the episode as narrated here, but
tlie part which she played comes out
in the supplementary story in H.A.
17. 40 sqq. Proc-opius wrote B.P. i,
25 in the third year of John’s im-
prisonment in Egypt {rpirov rouro
CTOS avTov ii'ravOa, KafJdpi^avres r'qpovcni^^
§ 43), }H-ubal)ly in 544-545. For when
lie says (§ 44) that the I'ctribution
for his acts overtook John ten years
later, lie seems to mean that ten years
elapsed between John’s reappoint-

ment after the Nika, in 532-533, and
the aifair at Cyziciis, which would
thus have occurred in 542-543.

“ What follows comes from H.A.
17 ,, where the date given is rerpatn
tvLa.vroh varepov (i.e. 546-547, see ia;St
note).

® This was done publicly in the
Forum of Constantino. Justinian,
aceordmg to Haur}'’s very probable
emendation of the text (ib., ad fin.),
pretended to know nothing about it

^ Procox^, B.F. ii. 30.

HISrOMY OF TBE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

It is incontestable that Theodora performed a public service
by delivering the eastern provinces from the govenimeiit of an
exceptionally iiiiscmpuloiis oppressor, and that his sulierings,
although they were illegally inflicted, were richly deserved.
But the revolting means imagined by her unprincipled satellite
Antonina and approved by herself, the employment of thcr
innocent girl to entrap her father,^ do not raise her high in our
estimation. It must be observed, however, that the public
opinion of that time foimd nothing repulsive in a stratagem
which to the more delicate feelings of the present age seems
imspeakably base and cruel. For the story is told openly in a
vrork which the author could not have ventured to publish if
it had contained anything reflecting injuriously on the character
of the Empress.^

It was not long before the Emj)ress had an opportunity of
repaying her friend for her dexterous service. Belisarius and
Antonina had adopted a youth named Theodosius, for whom
Antonina conceived an ungovernable passion. Their guilty
intrigue was discovered by Belisarius in Sicily (a.d. 535 “" 536 ),
and he sent some of his retainers to slay the paramour, who,
how^ever, escaped to Ephesus.^ But Antonina persuaded her
uxorious husband that she was not guilty, regained his affection,
and induced him to hand over to her the servants who had
betrayed her amour. It was reported that having cut out their
tongues she chopped their bodies in small pieces and threw them
into the sea. Her desire for Theodosius w^as not cooled by an
absence of 'five years, and while she was preparing her intrigue
against John the Cappadocian she wn.s planning to recall her
lover to her side when Belisarius departed for the East. But
her son Bliotius, who had always been jealous of the favourite
preferred to himself, penetrated her design and repealed the
matter to his stepfather, and they bound themselves by solemn
oaths to punish Theodosius. They decided, however, that

^ We are not told what became of treachery was iuionded. 11. A. 2. (U.
Eupbemia. ^ The" story is told in Prooopiiis,

I/.A. 1. 15 Tbeodnshis was a

“ One point was indeed omitted, Thracian ; his parents bt^iouged to
the shameless perjury of Antonina, the Eiinornian sect, and, lie was
and in the Secret, History Procopius bax^tized into the true faith at his
holds it up to censure. She had adoption jnst before the ^’’andal
sworn both to John and to Ms expedition started. ]*c.rhaps ho is
daughter by the most solemn oaths referred to in B.V. i. 12. 2 as “one
that a Christian can take that no of the soldiers recently baptized.”

XV FALL OF JOHN THE CAPPADOCIAN 61

nothing could be done immediately ; they must wait till Antonina
followed her husband to the East. Photius accompanied Beli-
sarit?s in the campaign, and for some months Antonina enjoyed
the society of her paramour at Constantinople. When, in the
summer of the year, she set out for Persia, TheodoMus returned
^to Ephesus. The general met his wife, showed his anger, but
had not the heart to slay her. Photius hastened to Ephesus,
seized Theodosius, and sent him under a guard of retainers to
be imprisoned in a secret place in Cilicia. He proceeded himself
to Constantinople, in possession of the wealth which Theodosius
had been allowed to appropriate from the spoils of Carthage.^
But the danger of her favourite had come to the ears of Theo-
dora, She caused Belisarius and his wife to be summoned to
the capital and she forced a reconciliation upon the reluctant
husband. Then she seized Photius and sought by torture to
make him reveal the place where he had concealed Theodosius.
But her torments were useless ; he was true to his stepfather.
The secret was disclosed, however, through another channel
and Theodosius was rescued; the Empress concealed him in
the Palace, and presented him to Antonina as a delightful
surprise.

The unhappy Photius, who showed greater force of character
than Belisarius, was kept a captive in the dungeons of Theodora,
He escaped twice, but was dragged back from the sanctuaries
in which he had sought refuge. His third attempt at the end
of three years was successful ; he reached Jerusalem, became a
monk, and escaped the vengeance of the Empress. He survived
Justinian, and in the following reign was appointed, notwith-
standing his religious quality, to suppress a revolt of the Samari-
tans, a task which he carried out, we are told, with the utmost
cruelty, taking advantage of his powers to extort money from
all the Syrian pro vmces.2

^ ILA. L 17, ‘‘it is said that lie share of the Italian plunder,
had < 10 1 by jii under 10,000 iiomis-

mata fiHun' the palaces of Cartha-ge “ John Eph. Hist, ecc. part 3,
and Pvaveima.'’ He was with BeM- book i. cc. 31, 32. This notice
sarins at Carthage, but was at gives a very unfa voumble impression
Ephesus when Eavenna was taken; of Photius, with whom Procopius is
so that, if the rejjorfc is true, Belisarius sympathetic. They agree in the
or Antonina must have sent him a statement that he became a monk.

62 ,

HISTORy OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

§ S. The Greed Pestilence {a.I), 542-543)

Justinian lia<i been fourteen years on the throne wheirthe
Empire was visited by one of those immense but rare calamities
ill the presence of which human beings could only siiccunib
helpless and resourceless until the science of the nineteeiitli
century began to probe the causes and supply the means of
preventing and checking them. The devastating plague, which
began its comse in the summer of a.b. 642 and seems to have
invaded and ransacked nearly every corner of the Empire, was,
if not more malignant, far more destructive, through the vast
range of its ravages, than the pestilences which visited ancient
Athens in the days of Pericles and London in the reign of Charles
II. ; and perhaps even than the plague which travelled from
the East to Eome in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. It probably
caused as large a mortality in the Emphe as the Black Death
of the fourteenth century in the same countries.^

The infection first attacked Pelusium, on the borders of Egypt,
with deadly eiiect, and spread thence to Alexandria and through-
out Egypt, and northivard to Palestine and Syria. In the follow-
ing year it reached Constantinople, in the middle of spring,-
and spread over Asia Minor and through Mesopotamia into the
kingdom of Persia.^ Travelling by sea, \vhether from Africa or
across the Adriatic, it invaded Italy and Sicily.'^

It was observed that the infection always started from the
coast and went up to the interior, and that those who survived

^ The best and principal authority Antioch (June 540). Tlio date ct
is Procopius {B.P. ii. 22-23), who was John of Ephesus (year of Alexandria
living in Constantinople during the 855 =:A.b. 543"-544) may be explained
visitation. But we have a second by supposing that tho year of lus
first-hand source in John of Ephesus, journey was 543. The plague was
who U'as in Palestine when the also noticed b;s' Kachariah of 31it}']onc
plague broke out there, and then, in the lost portion of booli x., but a
travelling to Mesopotamia and return- short extract is preserved in tlie
ing to Constantinople through Asia chronicle of l^Iichacl Syrus (ix. 28 ;
Minor, observed its ravages in Cilicia, see Zaehariah, p. 313).

Cappadocia, and Bithynia (extracts ^ Procopius, op. clt. 22, 9.

from his History in Land’s ed. of the ® Zaehariah mentions Xubia, Ethl-

Gominentarii, jK 227 sqq.). The date opia, Armenia, Arzanene, and Mesopo-
of the outbreak is fixed to 542 by the tamia. For Persia cp. also Proc(>j)!Uri,
order of events ii\ Procopius, ancl this op. cit, 25, 12.

agrees with the specific date of another GonL MarceUini, suh 543, mor>

contemporary, John IVlalalas (xviii. talUan magna lialUtc mlnm devasiatf
p. 48), who places it in the 5th Orlentem iam et llhjrk'uni peraeqnc
incUction (541-542), and with that of aUrilos, Zaehariah \s list of the visited
Evagrius (iv. 29), wlio jdaces it two countries includes Italy, Sicily, Africa,
years after the Persian captixre of and Gaul.

TEE GREAT PESTILENCE

it had become immune. The historian Procopius, who witnessed
its course at Constantinople, as Thucydides had studied the
plague at Athens, has detailed the nature and effects of the
bubonic disease, as it might be called, for the most striking
general feature was a swelling in the groin or in the armpit,
sometimes behind the ear or on the thighs. Hallucinations
occasionally preceded the attack. The victims were seized by
a sudden fever, which did not affect the colour of the sldn nor
make it as hot as might be expected.

The fever was of such a languid sort from its commencement and up
till evening that neither to the sick themselves nor to a physician who
touched them would it afford any suspicion of danger. ... But on the
same day in some cases, in others on the following day, and in the rest
not many days later a bubonic swelling developed. . . . Up to tins point
everything went in about the same way with all who Iiad taken the
disease. But from then on very marked differences develo]')ed. . . .
There ensued vith some a deep coma, with others a violent delirium,
and in either case they suffered the characteristic symptoms of the disease.
For those who were under the spell of the coma forgot all those who were
familiar to them and seemed to be sleeping constantly. And if any one
cared for them, they would eat without waking, but some also were
neglected and these would die directly through lack of sustenance. But
those who were seized with delirium suffered from insomnia and w^ere
victims of a distorted imagination ; for they suspected that men were
coming upon them to destroy them, and they would become excited
and rush off in flight, crying out at the top of their voices. And those
who were attending them were in a state of constant exhaustion and had
a most difficult time. . . . Neither the x^ysicians nor other persons were
found to contract this malady through contact with the sick or with
the dead, for many who were constantly engaged either in burying or
in attending those in no way connected with them held out in the per-
formance of this service beyond all expectation. ... [The patients] had
great difficulty in the matter of eating, for they could not easily take
food. And manj^ tlnough lack of any man to care for them,

for they were either overcome mth hunger, or threw themselves down
from a height.

And in those eases where neither coma nor delirium came on, the
bubonic swelling became mortmed and the sufferer, no longer able
to endtu'e the pain, died. And we would sux 3 X 30 se that in all cases the
same thing would have been true, but since they were not at all in their
senses, some were quite unable to feel the pain ; for owing to the troubled
condition of their minds they lost all sense of feeling.

Now some of the x">hysicians who were at a loss because the symx:)toms
were not understood, sux^posing that the disease centred in the bubonic
swellings, decided to investigate the bodies of the dead. And upon
opening some of the swellings they found a strange sort of carbuncle
[dr that had grown inside them.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Death came in some cases immediately, in others after many days ;
and with some the body broke out with black pustules about as large as
a lentil, and these did not survive even one day, but all succumbed im-
mediately. With many also a vomiting of blood ensued without visible
cause and straightway brought death. Moreover I am able to declare
this, that the most illustrious physicians predicted that many would
die, who unexpectedly escaped entirely from suffering shortly afterwards,
and that they declared that many would be saved who were destined to
be carried off almost immediately. . , . While some were helped by bath-
ing others were harmed in no less degree. And of those who received
no care many died, but others, contrary to reason, were saved. And
again., methods of treatment showed different results mth different
patients. , . . And in the case of women who were pregnant death could
be certainly foreseen if they were taken with the disease. For some died
through miscarriage, but others perished immediately at the time of
biith with the infants they bore. However they say that three women
survived though their children perished, and that one woman died at
the very time of child-birth but that the child was born and survived.

Now in those cases where the swelling rose to an unusual size and a
discharge of pus had set in, it came about that they escaped from the
disease and survived, for clearly the acute condition of the carbuncle
had found relief in this direction, and this proved to be in general an
indication of returning health. . . . And with some of them it came about
that the thigh was withered, in which case, though the swelling was tliere,
it did not develop the least suppuration. With others who survh'cd the
tongue did not remain unaffected, and they lived on either lisping or
speaking incoherently and -with difficulty.^

This description^ shows that the disease closely resembled
in character the terrible oriental plague which devastated Europe
and parts of Asia in the fourteenth century. In the case of the
Black Death too the chief symptom was the pestboils, but the
malady was generally accompanied by inflammation of the lungs
and the spitting of blood, which Procopius does not mention.'^

In Constantinople the visitation lasted for four months
altogether, and during three of these the mortality was enormous.
At first the deaths were only a little above the usual number,
but as the infection spread 5000 died daily, and when it
was at its worst 10,000 or upward.^ These figures are. too

^ I have borrowed Dewey’s trans-
lation.

^ It agrees generally with the less
accurate description of John of
Ephesus.

® See Hecker, The Epidemics of the
Middle Ages (transl. Bahington, ed. 3),
p. 3 sqq. The coma in some cases, the

sleeplessness in others, are mentioned.

So Procopius. Jo!m of .Ephesus
{op. eiL p. 234} says that oOCC, 7000,
12,000, even 16,000 eorpse.s of tlH‘.
poor were removed daily from the
streets in the early stage of the
plague ; and they v'erc counted by
men stationed at the harbours, the
ferries, and the gates.

THE GREAT PESTILENCE

vague to enable us to conjectuxe bow many of tixe population
were swept away ; but we may feel sceptical when another
urriter who witnessed the plague assures us that the number
of those who died in the streets and public places exceeded

300.000. ^ If we could trust the recorded statistics of the
^mortality in some of the large cities which were stricken by

the Black Death — in London, for instance, 100,000, in Venice

100.000, in Avignon 60,000 — then, considering the much larger
population of Constantinople, we might regard 300,000 as not
an excessive figure for the total destruction. For the general
mortality throughout the Empire we have no data for conjecture ;
but it is interesting to note that a physician who made a careful
study of all the accounts of the Black Death came to the con-
clusion that, without exaggeration, Europe (including Russia)
lost twenty-five millions of her inhabitants through that calamity.^

At first, relatives and domestics attended to the burial of the
dead, but as the violence of the plague increased this duty was
neglected, and corpses lay forlorn not only in the streets, but
even in the houses of notable men whose servants were sick or
dead. Aware of this, Justinian placed considerable sums at
the disposal of Theodore, one of his private secretaries,^ to
take measures for the disposal of the dead. Huge pits were dug
at Sycae, on the other side of the Golden Horn, in which the
bodies were laid in rows and tramped down tightly ; but the men
who were engaged on this work, unable to keep up with the
number of the dying, mounted the towers of the waU of the
suburb, tore off their roofs, and threw the bodies in. Virtually
all the towers were filled with corpses, and as a result an evil
stench pervaded the city and distressed the inhabitants still
more, and especially whenever the wind blew fresh from that
quarter.”^ It is particularly noted that the members of the
Blue and Green parties laid aside their mutual enmity and co-
operated in the labour of burying the dead.

^ John Eph, ib.

2 Hecker, op. cit. p. 29.

® Eeferendarii ; there were fourteen
(Justinian, Nov, 10). Eor these
officials, not to be confounded with
the magistri, see Bury, Magistri
scriniorum^ dvTLypacpTjs, and p€<pep€V-
ddpLoi,

^ Procopius, B,P. ii. 23. His

account of the measures for the
disposal of the corpses agrees nith
that of John Eph., who, however, does
not mention the towers, and says
that each of the pits could contain
70,000 bodies. One would have
thought that all the arrangements
would have been made by the Prefect
of the Gity, but that functionary is
not mentioned.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

During these montlis all work ceased ; the artisans abandoned
their trades. “ Indeed in a city which was simply abounding in
all good things starvation almost absolute was running fiot.
Certainly it seemed a difficult and very notable thing to have a
sufficiency of bread or of anything else.” ^ All court functions
were discontinued, and no one was to be seen in official dress, .
especially when the Emperor feU ill. For he, too, was stricken
by the plague, though the attack did not prove fatal.^

Our historian observed the moral effects of the visitation.
Men whose lives had been base and dissolute changed their
habits and punctiliously practised the duties of religion,® not
from any real change of heart, but from terror and because they
supposed they were to die immediately. But their conversion
to respectability was only transient. When the pestilence
abated and they thought themselves safe they recurred to their
old evil ways of life. It may be confidently asserted, adds the
cynical writer, that the disease selected precisely the worst men
and let them go free.

Fifteen years later there was a second outbreak of the plague
in Constantinople (spring a.d. 558), but evidently much less
virulent and destructive. It was noticed in the case of this
visitation that females suffered less than males.^

§ 9. The Conspiracy of Artabanes (a.d. 548)

The Empress Theodora died of cancer on June 28, a.d. 548.®
Her death was a relief to her numerous enemies, but to Justinian
it must have been a severe blow. We would give much to have
a glimpse into their private life or a record of one of their intimate

^ 16. (Dewey’s rendering). mation of the lungs, such as in former

2 Kac aury yap ^ov^Qiva times, and in the following centuries,

6Trrip0at. Gibbon suggests that Jus- were excited by the matter of con-
tinian may have owed his safety to tagion everywhere existing” (p. 27).
his abstemious habits. Another seri- The plague in Italy and Gaul which
ous illness of Justinian is recorded by Marius Avent. notices, sub a. 570, as
Procopius, Aed. i. 7. 6 sqq. morbus mlidus cum proflumo ventris

3 Cp. Heeker, op, cit p. 31. et variola seems to be the same as that

^ Agathias, v. 10. He identifies whose ravages in Liguria Paulus Diac.

this disease with that of 543. Of (Afist ii. 4) describes. Paul

the plagues of the fourteenth century, mentions the pest boils,
which were frequent after 1350 until ® Date : John Mai. xviii. ]3. 484,
1383, Heeker says that he does not cp. Procopius, B.G. iii. 30. 4 (in
consider them as the same as the Consularia Ital, sub a„ the day is
Black Death. “They were rather given as June 27). The disease is
common pestilences without inflam- named by Victor Tonn. sub 549,

XV THE CONSHIRdCY€E ARTABANES 67

conversations. We liave no means of lifting even a comer of
tlie veil. But it is a significant fact that, tlioiigli tliey disagreed
on Wious questions of policy, scandal, wliicii liad many evil
tilings to tell of them both, never found any pretext to suggest
that they quarrelled or were living oii bad terms.

^ Soon after this event a conspiracy was formed against the
Emperor’s life, which had little political significance but created
a great sensation because men of Ms own family were indirectly
involved.^ A general named Artabanes, of Armenian race,
whom we shall meet as a commander in Africa, had conceived
the ambition of marrying the Emperor’s niece Praejecta, but the
plan had been thwarted by Theodora, who compelled liim to live
again with the wife whom he had put away.^ After her death
he repudiated his wife for the second time, but Praejecta, who
had been given to another, was lost to him, and he bore no good-
will towards the Emperor. His disaffected feelings would not
have prompted him to initiate any sinister design, but a kinsman
of his, one Arsaces, was animated by a bitter desire of revenge
upon Justinian, who, when he was found guilty of a treacherous
correspondence with the king of Persia, had ordered him to be
scourged lightly and paraded through the streets on the back
of a camel. Arsaces fanned into flame the smouldering resent-
ment of Artabanes, and showed him how easy it would be to
kill the Emperor, who is accustomed to sit without guards till
late hours in the night, in the company of old priests, deep in
the study of the holy books of the Christians.” But perhaps
what did most to secure the adhesion of Artabanes was the pro-
spect that Germanus, Justinian’s cousin, and his two sons ® would
sanction, if they did not take an active part in, the design.

For Germanus, at this time, had a personal grievance against
the Emperor. His brother Boraides had died, leaving almost
all his property to Germanus, allowing his daughter to receive
only so much as was required by the law. But Justinian, deeming
the arrangement unfair, overrode the will in the daughter’s favour.^
Relying on the indignation which this arbitrary act had aroused
in the family, Arsaces opened communications with Justin, the
elder son of Germanus. Having bound him by oath not to reveal

^ Tlie source is Procoi^ius, B.Q, iii, 32. The date seems to be the latter
part of 548.

2 See below, p. 146. ® See above, p. 20. ^ B.G. ixi. 31, 17-18,

68 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN: EMPIRE chap.

the conversation to any person except his father, he enlarged
on the mamier in which the Emperor ill-treated and passed over
his relatives, and expressed his conviction that it would go*still
hai-der with them when Belisarius returned from Italy. He then
revealed the plan of assassination which he had formed in con-
i miction with ' Artabaiies and Chanaranges, a young and frivolous
Armenian who had been admitted to their counsels.

Justin, terrified at this revelation, laid it before his father,
who immediately consulted with Marcellus, the Count of the
Excubitors, whether it would be wise to inform the Emperor
immediately. Marcellus, an honourable, austere, and wary
man, dissuaded Germanus from taking that course, on the ground
that such a communication, necessitating a private interview
with the Emperor, would inevitably become known to the
conspirators and lead to the escape of Arsaces. He proposed
first to investigate the matter himself, and it was arranged that
one of the conspirators should be lured to speak in the presence
of a concealed witness. Justin appointed a day and hour for
an interview between Germanus and Chanaranges, and the com-
promising revelations were overheard by Leontius, a friend of
Marcellus, who was hidden behind a curtain. The programme
of the matured plot was to wait for the arrival of Beli-
sarius and slay the Emperor and his general at the same
time ; for if Justinian were slain beforehand, the con-
spirators might not be able to contend against the soldiers
of Belisarius. When the deed was done, Germanus was to be
proclaimed Emperor.

Marcellus stiU hesitated to reveal the plot to the Emperor,
through friendship or pity for Artabanes. But when Belisarius
was drawing nigh to the capital he could hesitate no longer,
and Justinian ordered the conspirators to be arrested. Germanus
and Justin were at first not exempted from suspicion, but when
the Senate inquired into the case, the testimony of Marcellus
and Leontius, and two other officers to whom Germanus had
prudently disclosed the affair, completely cleared them. Even
then Justinian was still indignant that they had concealed the
treason so long, and was not mollified until the candid Marcellus
took all the blame of the delay upon himself. The conspirators
were treated with clemency, being confined in tbe Palace and not
in the public prison. Artabanes was not only soon pardoned

XV THE CONSPIRACY OF ARTABANES 69

but was created Master of Soldiers in Tbrace and sent to take
part in tlie Ostrogothic war.^

x4notlier plot to assassinate Justinian was organised by a
number of obscure persons in November a.b. 562, ^ and: would
liardly merit to be recorded if it bad not injio’ed Belisarius. One
of tbe conspirators talked indiscreetly to Eusebius, Count of tbe
Federates, and they were all arrested. Tbeir confessions involved
two followers of Belisarius, wbo, seized and examined by tlie
Prefect of tbe City and tbe Quaestor, asserted that Belisarius
was privy to tbe plot. Tbe Emperor convoked a meeting of tbe
Senate and Imperial Council ; tbe depositions of tbe prisoner
were read ; and suspicion weighed beavily on tbe veteran general.
He made no resistance when be was ordered to dismiss all bis
armed retainers, and be remained in disgrace till July a.d. 563,
wben be was restored to favour.^ His cbaracter and tbe whole
record of bis life make it highly improbable that be was guilty
of disloyalty in bis old age. He died in March a.b. 566.^ His
disgrace, tbougb it was brief, made such an impression on popular
imagination in later times that a Belisarius legend was formed,
which represented tbe conqueror of Africa and Italy as ending
bis days as a blind beggar in tbe streets of Constantinople.^

1 B.G. iii. 39. 8.

2 John Halalas, xviii. 493, and De
ms. fr. 49; Theophanes, a.m. 6055.
The conspirators were : Abiabius, son
of Miltiades ; Marcellas, Vitus, and
Eusebius, bankers ; Sergius, nephew
of Aetherius, the curator dovius
diviiiae ; Isaac, 6 dpyvpoTrpdrris 6 Kara
BeXiadpLov ; and Paul, a retainer of
Belisarius. The workshop of Mar-
cellus was near >St. Irene, and he is
described as 6 Kara KW^piov rbv
KovpaTisipa. Marcellus, who was ar-
rested as he entered the Palace
with a dagger {^ovyXLv = pugio),
killed himself on the spot. Paul
the Silentiary refers to this con-
spiracy in S. Sophia, 22 sqq.

^ Theophanes, ib. The technical
terra for political disgrace is dyavd-

KTrjCTLS.

* Theophanes, a.m. 6057. His
property went to the Imperial house
of Marina. Antonina survived him
according to ITdrpta/p. 254.

® The earliest mention of this
legend is in Uarpta, p. 160 (tenth
century), cp. Tzetzes, Chil, iii. 339 sqq*
The extant medieval romance on the
subject took shape in the age of the
Palaeologi. Belisarius, slandered by
jealous nobles, is shut up in a tower.
The Emperor releases him on the
insistent demand of the people that
he should be the leader of a military
expedition against England (I'Tjcriv
TTjs ^ByyXTjripas). Belisarius sails
thither, takes the English Kdo-rpou,
and returns to Constantinople with
the king of England as prisoner. He
is again accused of treason, and is
blinded. The three known versions
of the story will be found in Wagner,
Oarmina Graeca medii ami, p. 304 sqq.
There is a historical ease of disgraced
generals (Peganes and Symbatios)
being blinded and set to beg in the
streets in the ninth century (see
Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, p. 176),
and perhaps this suggested the
mythical fate of Belisarius.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE ciIap.

§ 10. The Succession to the Throne

As Justiniaii had. no children of his own, it was inciiDQ))ent
on him to avert the possibility of a struggle for the throne after
his death by designating a successor. So long as Theodora was
alive the importance of providing for the future was not so
serious, as it might be reasonably supposed that she would be'
able to control the situation as successfully as Pulcheria and
Ariadne. But after her death it was a dereliction of duty on
the part of Justinian, as it had been on the part of Anastasius,
not to arrange definitely the question of the succession. His
failure to do so was probably due partly to his suspicious and
jealous temper, and partly to an inability to decide between
the two obvious choices.

Of his three cousins, Germanus, Boraides, and Justus,^ only
Germanus survived Theodora, but he, who was an able man and
whom the popular wish would have called to the throne, died
two years later. His two sons, Justin and Justinian, were
competent officers. We have seen them occupying important
military posts, and if they were not trusted with the highest
commands, it is probable that they did not display ability of
the first rank. They were both unreservedly loyal to the sovran,
and Justin seems, like his father, to have enjoyed general respect
and popularity.^ If Justinian had decided to create him Caesar
or Augustus, the act would have been universally applauded.

The influence of Theodora had rendered it impossible for the
Emperor, in her lifetime, to show any special preference for this
branch of his kin. Germanus, whose amiable qualities and sense
of justice endeared him to others, was hated and suspected by
her. She resolved that his family should not multiply. He
had children, but he should have no grandchildren. In this
design she so far succeeded that neither of his sons married till
after her death. All her efforts, however, did not prevent his
daughter Justina from espousing the general John, nephew of
Vitalian, but she threatened that she would destroy John and
he went in fear of his life.^

^ See above, p. 20. Germamis ^ Cp. Evagrius, v. 1.
died in 550 (Procopius, B.G. iii. 40. 9) ; ® Procopius, B.A. 5. 845. John,

Boraides c. 547-548 (see above, p. 67) ; who was in Italy, avoided associating
Justus in 545 (J5.P. ii. 28. 1). For with Belisarius, through fear of
the marriage of Germanus see above, ;4ntonina. If we are to connect this
p. 20, and for his death, below, p. 254. with the statement in B.G. iii 18. 25

XV THE SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE 71

J ustiiiian tad nephews, sons of Ms sister Vigilantiad and on tlie
eldest of these, Justin, the Empress bestowed her favour. Her
de.4re was that her own blood should be perpetuated in the
dynasty,, and she , married',' her niecO' SopMa, ,a .woman who
possessed qualities resembling her own, to Justin. After her
.death,. .Justinian seems to have been convinced that the .con-
spicuous merits of Germanus entitled him to the succession,
but he was unable to bring Mmself to take a definite decision.
When Germanus died the choice lay between the two Justins,
the nephew and the cousin, and we may divine that there was a
constant conflict between their interests at court. The Emperor’s
preference inclined, on the whole, to Justin, the husband of
Sophia. He created him Guropalates, a new title of rank which
raised him above other Patricians, yet did not give him the status
of an heir apparent which would have been conferred by the
title of Caesar or even Nobilissimus.^ But Justin enjoyed the
great advantage of living in the Palace and having every oppor-
tunity to prepare his way to the throne ; while the services of
his rival and namesake were employed in distant Colchis.

Not the least of Theodora’s triumphs was the posthumous
realisation of her plan for the succession. Justinian died on
Nov. 14, A.D. 565,^ and Justin, the son of Vigilantia, supported
by the Senate and the Excubitors, secured the throne without
a struggle.

APPENDIX

A SCENE IN THE HIPPODROME

The chronicle of Theophanes contains a remarkable record of a
conversation between Justinian and the Green party in the Hippo-
drome. It is apparently an official record (preserved in the archives
of the Greens ?), under the title ’A /era Brn NaXoTroSiov rov kov^lkov”

irapa 'BeXiadpiov otiKirL 7 }€l (tllOTigh
a different motive is assigned), the
date of the marriage of John and
Justina would be a.d. 546.

^ See above, p. 20.

^ He was Guropalates in 559, when
he repressed a Hippodrome riot.
John Mai. xviii. 491. See Evagrius,
V. 1. Sophia was perhaps a daughter

of Comito and Sittas.

® Ohron. Pasch . , stib a. Theophanes
gives Nov. 11 as the day. His
funeral is described by Corippus in
Laud, Hist iii. 4c sqq. The Empress
Sophia laid over his bier a purple
cloth on which were embroidered in
gold pictures of his achievements,
lusUnianorum series tota lahormn, ib.
n. ^76 sqq.

HISTORY OF THE. LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

kdpiov Kal (TTraOdpLov, and is inserted after the short summary of
the Nika riot which the chronicler has prefixed to his detailed
narrative. But it exhibits no connexion whatever with the causes
of that event, and may record an incident which occurred at some
other period of the reign.^ It seems likely that Calopodius who
had ofiended the Greens is the same as Calopodius who was
'positus s, cub. in a.b. 558 (John Mai. xviii. p. 490).

As we are totally ignorant of the circumstances, a great part of
this allusive dialogue is very obscure. Some act on the part of
the chamberlain Calopodius had excited the anger of the Greens ;
they begin by complaining of this in respectful tones, and obtaining
no satisfaction go on to air their grievances as an oppressed party,
with violent invective. A mandator or herald speaks for the
Emperor, standing in front of the kathisma, and the Greens
evidently have a single spokesman.

Greens. Long may you live, Justinian Augustus ! Tu vincas. I am
oppressed, 0 best of sovrans, and my grievances, God knows, have become
intolerable. I fear to name the oppressor, lest he prosper the more and
I endanger my own safety.

Mandator. Who is he ? I know him not.

Greens. My oppressor, 0 thrice august ! is to be found in the quarter
of the shoemakers.^

Mandator. No one does you wrong.

Greens. One man and one only does me wrong. Mother of God, may
he be humbled (/a>) dva/ce(/)aA,tVp) !

Mandator. Who is he ? We know him not.

Greens. Nay, you know well, 0 thrice august 1 I am oppressed this day.

Mandator. We know not that anyone oppresses you.

Greens. It is Calopodius, the spathar, wLo wrongs me, 0 lord of all I

Mandator, Calopodius has no concern with you.®

Greens. My oppressor will perish hke Judas; God will requite him
quickly.

Mandator. You come, not to see the games, but to insult your rulers.

Greens. If anyone wrongs me, he will perish like Judas.

Mandator. Silence, Jews, Manichaeans, and Samaritans I

Greens. Do you disparage us with the name of Jews and Samaritans ?
The Mother of God is with all of us.

Mandator. When will ye cease cursing yourselves ?

Greens. If anyone denies that our lord the Emperor is orthodox, let
him be anathema, as Judas.

^ See P. Maas, Metrische Ahklama'
tionen der Byzantinerf B.Z. xxi. 49-50.
He reprints the Greek text so as to
bring out the rhythmical character
of the conversation. The Acta were
known to the compiler of the Qhron.
Pasch. (c. A.n. 630), who reproduces
the opening words of the Greens.
He substitutes plural verbs for

singular, but otherwise agrees closely
with Theophanes. Both writers pro-
bably copied from a sixth -century
chronicle.

® Ei’s tA r^ayyapeia evpiaKeraL — an
allusion to the name of Calo-podius
(as Maas points out).

^ OvK irpaypLa.

J SCENE IN THE HIPPODROME

Mandator. I would have you all baptized in the name of one God.

The Oi'eens {tumiiUiiously). I am baptized in One God. ^

Mandator. Verily, if you refuse to be silent, I shall have you beheaded.

Greens. Every jjerson seeks a post of authority, to secure his personal
safety. Your Majesty must not be^ mdignant at what I say in my tribula-
tion, for the Deity listens to all complaints. We have good reason, O
Emperor I to mention ail things mow;. ^ For we do not even know where
the palace is, nor where is the government. If I come into the city
once,, it is .'sitting, on a, mule and I -wish I had not to .come then,, your'
Majesty.^

: ' Mandator. Every one is free to move .in public, where he wishes,
without danger.

Greens. I am told I am free, yet l am not allowed .to use my freedom.
If a man is free but is suspected as a Green, he is sure to be publicly
punished. , , , . , ' ,

Mandator. Have ye no care for, your '-lives' that ye .thus, brave death ?

Greens. Let this (green) colour be once uplifted then justice dis-
appears. Put an end to the scenes of mui’der, and let us be lawfully
punished. Behold, an abmidant fountain ; punish as many as you like.
Verily, human natui*e cannot tolerate these two (contradictory) things.
Would that Sabbatis had never been bom, to have a son who is a murderer.
It is the twenty-sixth murder that has been committed in the Zeugma ; ®
the victim was a spectator in the morning, in the afternoon, 0 lord of
all ! he was butchered.

Blues. Yourselves are the only party in the hippodrome that has
murderers among .their number.

Greens. When ye commit murder ye leave the city in flight.

Blues. Ye shed blood, and debate. Ye are the only party here with
murderers among them.

Greens. 0 lord. Justinian 1 they challenge us and yet no one slays
them. Truth will compel assent.^ Who slew the woodselier in the
Zeugma, 0 Emperor ? „ ■

Mandator. Ye slew him.

Greens. Who slew the son of Epagathus, Emperor 7

Mandator. Ye slew him too, and ye slander the Blues.

Greens. Now have pity, O Lord God! The truth is suppressed. I
should like to argue wdth them who say that affairs are managed by God.
Whence comes this misery ?

^ The Greens apparently take up
the words of the mandator, eis em
^airri^ecrdac, in a Monophysitic sense.
The preceding words, oi 8^ wpacnvU

i^orjcrav eirdv(jj dWrjXuiv Kal iKpa^oif ws

€K€\ev(r€v ’'AvrXas, seem to imply that
while the conversation was through-
out conducted by a spokesman
(Antlas ?), here the whole party
shouted together.

^ ’Ovofjid^ofjLev dprtTrdvra. The sense
demands that dprt should be the

emphatic word.

^ ''Orap € 1 $ popBd)ptv KCLdi^otiau Pris-
oners were drawn by mules to
execution or punishment.

* fiTjoe Tore, rpLcavyovcrre.

® Birapdfi TO xpd>P-o> rovro Kal rj dcKi]

ov XPVP'^'^I^

** De Boor prints gIkotcos ^/cros.
Sabbatlus, it will be remembered, was
Justinian’s father,

NoT^vci 6 OiXwv.

74 HISTORY OF THE" LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap, xv
G od cannot be tempted witli evil.

Greens, God, you say, cannot be tempted with evil ? Who is it then
who wrongs me ? Let some philosopher or hermit explain the distinction.

Mandator, Accursed blasphemers, when will ye hold your peace ?

Greens. If it is the pleasure of your Majesty, I hold my peace, albeit
unwillingly. I know all — all, but I say nothing. Good-bye, Justice ! you
are no longer in fashion. I shall turn and become a Jew. Better to be
a Greek ” (pagan) than a Blue, God knows.

Blues. You are detestable, I cannot abide the sight of you. Your
enmity dismays me.

Gh'eens, Let the bones of the spectators be exhumed ! ^

The language of this astonishing dialogue obeys metrical laws,
which concern not quantity but the number of the syllables and
the accentuation of the last word in each clause. The most fre-
quently occurring form is five syllables with the penultimate accented
+ four wuth the antepenultimate (or ultimate ?) accented, e.g. :

ouSe TO TraXariv rparavyovcTTe.

It is evident that to converse in metrical chant both the Imperial
mandator and the spokesmen of the demes must have had a special
training in the art of improvising. ^

^ I.e. let them be murdered. A
customary form of curse in the
Hippodrome, cp. Theophanes, a.m.
6187 dvacrKa(p-y rd ocrria ’lovcrriPLavov
(Justinian II.).

2 An earlier example of metrical
cries is preserved in inscriptions on
the monument of the famous

charioteer Porphyrins (reign of Anas-
tasius). See Woodward^s publication
in the Appendix to George, Church of
Saint Eireiie ; and his paper in the
Annual of the British School at Athens ,
xvii. 88 sqq. The dialogue has con-
siderable interest as a sample of the
spoken Greek of the sixth century.

CHAPTER XVI

THE PERSIAN WARS

§ 1. The Ro^nan Army

Our records of the Persian war conducted by the generals of
Anastasius, which was described in a former chapter, give us
little information as to the character and composition of the
Imperial army. But we may take it as probable that the
military establishment was already of much the same land as
we find it a quarter of a century later in the reign of Justinian.
In the course of the fifth century the organisation of the army
miderwent considerable changes which our meagre sources of
information do not enable us to trace. During that period,
since the early years of Theodosius II., we have no catalogue
of the military establishment, no military treatises,^ no military
narratives. When we come to the reign of Justinian, for which
we have abundant evidence,^ we find that the old system of
the fourth century has been changed in some important respects.

The great commands of the Masters of Soldiers, and the
distinction between the comitatenses and the Umitanei, have not

^ With the exception of that of see Bibliography. In regard to the
Vogetius, which does not help much, date of the Strat^gikon {falsely
See above, VoL I. p, 225. ascribed to the Emperor Maurice),

2 Besides Procopius, the chief it is quite clear that it was composed
source, we have four tactical docu- u/ifer the reign of Justinian, and 6g/ore
ments which supplement and illustrate the institution of the system of
his information. (1) Fragments of Themes, which is probably to be
a tactical work by Urbicius, who ascribed to Heraclius. Thus we get
wrote in the reign of Aiiastasius. (2) as outside limits a.d. 565“C. 615. It
Anonymus Byzantios He/?! o-rpar??- it quite perverse to date it (with
jLKTjs, and (3) a epfji^fjyeLa or glossary Vari and others) to the eighth century,
of military terms, from the reign For modern studies of the sixth-
of Justinian. (4) Pseudo-Mauricius, century armies see Bibliography 11.

from the end of the sixth 2, 0 under Benjamin, Maspero,

century. For editions of these works Aussaresses, Grosse, Muller.

■ 75 ', ■'

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

been altered; but the legions, tbe cohorts, and the alae, the
familiar units of the old Eoman armies, have disappeared both
in name and in fact, and to the comitafenses limitanei has
been added a new organisation, th.efoederat% a term which has
acquired a different meaning from that which it bore in the
fourth century.

The independent military unit is now the numems^ a company
generally from 200 to 400 strong, but sometimes varying below
or above these figures. In old days it was necessary to divide
the legion for the purpose of garrisoning towns ; on the new
system each town could have a complete, or more than one
complete unit. These companies were under the command of
tribunes.^

Apart from the guard- troops stationed in the capital, the
armed forces of the Empire fall into five principal categories.

(1) The technical name comitatemes is little used. These troops,
who are recruited almost exclusively among subjects of the
Empire chiefly in the highlands of Thrace, Illyricum and Isauria,
are now generally distinguished as stratiotai^ regular Roman
soldiers, from the other sections of the army. 2*

(2) The limitanei perform the same duty of protecting exposed
frontiers, and on the same conditions as before.

(3) The foederati, who must have been organised in the fifth
century, are the new and striking feature which is revealed to
us by the history of the campaigns of Belisarius. They are the
most useful part of the field army, and they consist entirely of

^ Tte Greek name of the numerus to the are : phalanx =4096>
is aptdjj,6s or rdyfia (Sozomen, E.M. meros = 2048, chiliarchia 1026,
i. 8 Td,'Fo}iJLa.Lo)u raypLara d vvv dpLdfjLoijs pentakosiarchia 512, syntagma
KaXouin) ; KardXoyos is used in the (tagma) = 256, taxis = 128, tetrarchia
same sense, e.g. Procopius, B.P. i. 16, = 64 , lochos = 16 (sometimes 8 or 12 ;

For the evidence as to its strength Urbicins says 25). Pseudo-Maurice
cp. Maspero, op. cit 116 sq.^ who contemplates rather higher figures :
remarks that it was a tactical the tagma should vary from 3^00 to
principle to vary the strength of the 400 as a maximum ; the chiiiarchy,
numeri in order to deceive the enemy which he terms a /xoipa, should vary
(cp. Pseudo-Maurice, Strat. i. 4 ad from 2000 to 3000 ; the meros, which
fin. A’? Trdvra rd rdyjuiaTa consists of /j.0Lpat, should not exceed

ripdeiuGiv TrdvTcas icra TroceLP kt\. ). 6000 or 7000 (Strat. i. 4).

But the theoretical strength of the

infantry numerus which Urbicius and 2 Iij jg notable that Procopius

the tacticians of Justinian’s reign sometimes speaks of the Isaurian
call G-ijprayfia was 256 ('Ep/xi^veta 12, regiments as if they were distinct
cp. Pseudo-Maurice, xii. 8 ; Urbicins from the other Roman troops
says 250). These authorities nearly (Kard'KoyoL), as in B.G. i. 5. 2 ; but
agree as to the tactical divisions of an they were included among the
army. The chief division, according stratidtai.

XVI THE ARMY IN THE SIXTH CENTURY 77

cavalry. They were originally recruited exclusively from
barbarians, who volunteered for Imperial service, and' were
organised as Roman troops under Roman officers ; ^ but in the
sixth century Roman subjects were not debarred from enlisting
in their companies.^ The degradation of the term Federates to
designate these forces was not very happy, and it has naturally
misled modern historians into confusing them with (4) the troops
to whom the name was properly applied in the fourth century,
and who are now distinguished as Allies : ® the bands of bar-
barians, Huns, for instance, or Heruls, who, bound by a treaty
with the Empire, furnished, in return for land or annual sub-
sidies, armed forces which were led by their native chiefs.

To these we must add (5) another class of fighting men, who
were not in the employment of the government, the private
retainers of the military commanders. The rise of the custom
of keeping bands of armed followers has already been noticed.^
It was adopted not only by generals and Praetorian Prefects,
but by ofiicers of subordmate rank and wealthy private persons.^
The size of the retinues depended upon the wealth of the employer.
Belisarius, who was a rich man, kept at one time as many as
7000.6 '

There were two distinct classes of retainers, the Jiypaspistai,
shield-bearers, who were the rank and file, and the doryphoroi^
spear-bearers, who were superior in rank, fe-wer in number, and
corresponded to officers. Belisarius himself and Sittas had been

^ The position of the Foederati honourable and doubtless received
was misconceived by Mommsen and higher pay than the eomitatenses.
by Benjamin (who held that they For the technical use of Stratidtai see
were recruited by Roman officers as a Justinian, Nov, 116 cfTparmraL Kal
private speculation) and has been ^oLdeparoi, Nov. 117. 11; Procopius,
elucidated by J. Maspero (Organ, mil. B.P. i. 17. 46 'Pw/^iacot (TTparcuraL,
and (-^oLoepdrcL). His arguments J5. F. i. 11.2; R.(?. iv. 26. 10.
seem to me convincing. The growth ^ Procopius, B.V. i. 11.
of the Federate troops was gradual, ® Su/A^aaxoi:
and appears to have begun in the ^ See above, Chap. ii. § 2.

reign of Honorius (Olympiodorus, fr. ^ Benjamin (op. cit. 24 sqq.) has

7). Areobindus is a Count of the collected instances from Procopius
Federates under Theodosius II. (John and Agathias. Egyptian papyri sup-
Mal. xiv. 364); in the time of ply evidence for the employment of
Anastasius, Patriciolus (Theophanes, these Bucellarians in Egypt by large
A.M. 6005) and probably Vitalian landowners. See the instances cited
held the same post. There was a by Maspero, Organ, milit. 66 sqq.
special bureau of x^pTovXdpioL <poL- ® Procopius, B.G. iii. 1. 20.

bepdrtav to deal with the payment Valerian, Jlay. miZ. of Armenia, had
of these troops (G.J. xii. 37. 19, more than 1000 retainers (i6. xxvii. 3).
probably a law of Anastasius), who Harses had less than 400 (Agathias,
seem to have been considered more 1.19).

78 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

doryplioroi in tlie retinue of Justinian before he ascended the
throne. The doryphoroi on accepting service were obliged to
take a solemn oath not only of fidelity to their employer. But
also of loyalty to the Emperor J a circumstance which implies
an official recognition by the government. They were often
employed on confidential missions, they stood in the presence
of their master at meals, and attended him closely in battle.
Both the doryphoroi and the hypaspistai seem to have been
entirely mounted troops. The majority of them were foreigners
(Huns and Goths), or mountaineers of Thrace and Asia Minor.

As a rule, in the campaigns of the sixth century, we find the
armies composed mainly of comitatenses and f oederati, but
always reinforced by private retainers and barbarian allies. A
single army in the field generally numbered from 15,000 to
25,000 men, a figure which probably it seldom exceeded ; 40,000
was exceptionally large. The total strength of the Imperial
army under Justinian was reckoned at 150, 000.^

The tactics and equipment of the Imperial armies had been
considerably altered by the necessity of adapting them to the
military habits of their oriental foes. At this time, in establish-
ment and equipments, the Persians differed so little from the
Romans that a Roman corps might have appeared in a Persian,
or a Persian in a Roman army, with little sense of discrepancy.
The long eastern warfare of the third and fourth centuries had
been a school in which the Romans transformed in many ways
their own military traditions and methods. They adopted from
their adversaries elaborate defensive armour, cuirasses, coats
of mail, casques and greaves of metal. At the end of the fourth
century there were cuirassiers forming corps d'elite, and in the
sixth these heavily armed iron cavalry ’’ ® {catafractarii) have
become a still larger and more important section of the army.
Another result of the eastern wars was the universal practice
of archery, which the old Roman legions despised. The heavy
cavalry were armed with bow and arrows as well as with lance
and sword.

^ B.7. ii. 18. 6. TKe superior 32-33.

position of the doryphoroi is illus- ^ Agathias, v. 13 ad fin. The

trated by the fact that individual figure is probably very close to the
hypaspistai are very seldom named truth.

by Procopius, whereas he mentions ^ equitatus, Amm. Marc,

byname 47 doryphoroi. Benjamin, xix. 1. 2.

XVI

THE FIRST PERSIAN WAR

I 2. The First ■527-532)

1e his old age king Kavad was troubled and anxious about
the succession, to his throne, which he desired to secure to Ohosroes
his favourite son.. But Ohosroes was not dhe eldest,, and ,, his
father feared that when he died the ' Persian noble.s would prefer
one of the elder brothers and put Ohosroes' to death. , Accordingly
he conceived the idea of .placing his favourite under the protection,,
'of the Eoman Emperor,, as Arcadius had recommended Theo-
dosius to the. protection of Yezdegerd. But his proposah took
a strange form. He asked Justin to adopt Ohosroes. Both
Justin and Justinian were at ' first attracted by the proposal,

■ but the influence of the quaestor Proclus induced them to refuse.
Proclus, who viewed the matter, as a lawyer, represented the
request as insidious;, for, the adopted son might assert a claim
to the father’s inheritance ; the Persian king might claim the
Roman Empire.

The refusal of his request .was deeply resented by Kavad,
and there were causes of friction in the Oaucasian regions which
led to a new breach between the two great powers.^ Both
governments were actively pushing their interests in that part
of the world.

The Pontic provinces, as well as Roman Armenia, constantly
suffered from the depredations of the Tzani, a heathen people
who maintained their independence in an inland district on
the borders of Colchis and Armenia, and lived by brigandage.
The Imperial government was in the habit of giving them a
yearly allowance to purchase immunity, but they paid little
regard to the contract. One of the achievements of Justin’s
peaceful reign was partially to civilise these wild mountaineers.
Sittas, the brother-in-law of Theodora, was sent against them.
He subdued them, enrolled them in the Roman armies, and they
were induced to embrace Christianity.^

The reduction of the Tzani proved to be a preliminary to a
more active policy in the Caucasian countries. South of the

^ Legally fche two powers seem to lasted for 31 years, i.e. since o02,
have been in a state of war, for the

armistice of seven years (a.d, 505) ^ Jnstinian, Wor. 28. Proc. J5.P.

had not been renewed. This may be i. 15. They returned to their old
inferred from the statement of John marauding habits and had to be
Malalas (xviii. p. 478) that the peace reduced again in A.n, 558. Agathias,
of 532 terminated a war which had v. 1. 2,

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

great range, between tbe Eiixine and tbe Caspian, lay three
kingdoms : in the west, Colchis, the land of the Lazi, whose
name is still preserved in Lazistan; in the centre, Iberia or
Georgia ; and in the east, almost beyond Eoman vision, Albania,

indomitique Dahae et pontem indignatas Araxes.

The importance of Lazica, in Eoman eyes, was twofold. It was
a barrier against the barbarians north of the Caucasus, and it
was a barrier against a Persian advance through Iberia to the
coasts of the Black Sea.^ In the reign of Justin, Tzath, the
king of the Lazi, who had hitherto been friendly to Persia,
visited Constantinople and became a client of the Emperor.^
Perhaps this change of policy was caused by the development
of Persian designs in Iberia. This country had long been a
client state of Persia, but it was devoted to the Christian faith.
Kavad either resolved to assimilate it to Persian civilisation
or sought a pretext for invading it, and he issued a command
to the Iberians to abandon the custom of burying their dead.
Gurgenes, the Iberian king, turned to the Eoman Emperor for
protection.® A force was sent to Lazica, while a Persian army
invaded Iberia, and Gurgenes, with his family, fled within the
Lazic borders and proceeded to Constantinople. Eoman garri-
sons were placed in the Lazic forts on the Iberian frontier,^ and
Sittas with Belisarius, who now first appears upon the scene, made
a successful incursion into Persarmenia. In a second expedition
the Eomans were defeated by two able commanders, Narses and
Aratius, who afterwards deserted and entered Eoman service.^
Thus the war began before the death of Justin. Perhaps it
might have been averted if his successor had not determined to

^ For Eoman interference in the
domestic affairs of Colchis in the
reign of Marcian see Prisons, fr, 8
De leg. Eom., fr. 12 De leg. gent. (cp.
also frs. 16 and 22).

^ John Mai. xviii. p. 412. He was
baptized a Christian and married a
Roman lady, Valeriana, daughter of
Nomos a patrician. Justin crowned
him, and the chronicler describes his
royal robes at some length.

® Justin sent Probus, the nephew
of Anastasius, with a large sum of
money, to Bosporus, to induce the
Huns of the Crimea to help the
Iberians ; but he was unsuccessful

(Proc. B.P. i. 12).

* But they soon departed, and the
natires were unable to defend the
forts against the Persians. Proc.
B.P. i. 13, p. 58. Sittas was a Mag.
mil. in praes.^ and he was now
appointed to the newly created post
of Mag. mil. per Armeniam. He
seems to have held the two posts
concurrently. During peace his head-
quarters were at Constantinople. See
Proc. B.P. i. 15, p. 74, ii. 3, p. 154 ;
John Mai. xviii. p. 429,

® Procopius, ib. i. 12. This is
probably the incursion (noticed by
John Mai. p. 427) under Gilderic and
others.

» . ■ p»'..

XVI

THE FIRST PERSIAN WAR

bTlild a new fortress near Daras. Belisariiis, wlio had been
appointed commandant of Daras, was directed to begin the work,
and as the building operations .were progressing, a Persian army,

, 3-0,000 ' strong, under the prince Xerxes, invaded Mesopotamia
(A/n. 528).d , The- Romans, under, several leaders, who had' j.oined
forces, were defeated in a disastrous battle; two of the com-
manders , were slain ' and three captured. Belisarius luckily
escaped. The foundations of the new fortress were left in the
hands of the enemy. But the victors had lost heavily and soon
retreated beyond the frontier, Justinian sent more troops and
new captains to the fortresses of Amida, Constantia, Edessa, Sura,
and Beroea ; and formed a new army (of Illyrians and Thracians,
Scythians and Isaurians) which he eiitriisted to Pompeius,
probably the nephew of Anastasius.^ But no further operations
are recorded in this year, which closed with a severe winter.

The hostilities of A.D. 529 began in March -with a combined
raid of Persian and Saracen forces, under the guidance of Mundhir,
king of Hira, who penetrated into Syria, almost to the walls of
Antioch, and retreated so swiftly that the Romans could not
intercept him. Reprisals were made by a body of Phrygians
who plundered Persian and Saracen territory (April). Pompeius
seems to have accomplished nothing, and Belisarius was appointed
Master of Soldiers in the East.® The rest of the year was occupied
with ineffectual negotiations.^

1 John Mai. p. 441. For the events Procopius, who places both the

of 528 we have to combine Procopius appointment and the deposition of
{B.P. L 13) and Malaias. The two Hypatius before April 427 (-S.P. i 11.
narratives are carefuiiy compared by p."53 and p. 55, compared with i. 13.
Sotiriadis in Zur Kr, v, Joli. v. Ant p. 59), It is possible that the notice
p. 114 sq. It is to be noted that of the deposition is an anticipa-
Belisarius held only a subordinate tion ; the whole section beginning Acer a
position and was in no way responsible p. 54, to end of chap. ii. may

for the defeat. The operations of be a chronological digression. But
529 are entirely omitted by Procopius. Zaeharias, ix. 1, states that Timus
For the fortress at Minduos, which (otherwise unknown, perhaps an error
the Romans tried to build, see Proc. for Timostratus) was mag. mik
ib. and Zacharias, Myt ix. 2. when Justin died, and that Belisarius

2 John Mai. p, 442. Pompeius succeeded him (ix. 2). If this is
was a x^atrician, and it is not very right, Malaias is wrong.

likely that there ’were two patricians ^ It is remarkable that in the
of tiiis name. summer of 529 Justinian should have

® In succession to Hypatius (before sent the customary friendly embassy
June) acc. to John Mai. p, 445. to announce his accession. Hermo-
Hyx)atius {ib. 423) had been created genes was the envoy (John Mai pp.
mag. Qnil. Or. between April and 447-448). He returned with a letter
August 627. It is difficult to reeon- from Havad, of which the text is
cile this with the statements of given (i6. p. 449).

VOL. II Q

82 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap

Belisarins was now to win his military laurels at the early
age of twenty-five. There was still talk of peace, but Kavad
seems not to have really desired it, and the ambassador, Rufinus,
waited idle at Hierapolis. Hermogenes, the Master of Offices,
was sent out to help the young general with his experience,
and they concentrated at Daras an army of 25,000 mixed and
undisciplined troops. Perozes, who had been appointed mihran
or commander-in-chief of the Persian army, arrived at Nisibis
in June ^ (a.d. 530), at the head of 40,000 troops, confident of
victory. They advanced within two miles of Daras, and the
mihran sent to Belisarins a characteristically oriental message,
that, as he intended to bathe in the city on the morrow, a bath
should be prepared for his pleasure.

The Romans made preparations for battle, just outside the
walls of the town. The Persians arrived punctually as their
general signified, and stood for a whole day in line of battle
without venturing to attack the Romans, who were drawn
up in carefully arranged positions. In the evening they retired
to their camp,^ but returned next morning, resolved not to let
another day pass without a decisive action, and found their
enemy occupying the same positions as on the preceding day.
They w^ere themselves now reinforced by a body of 10,000, which
arrived from Nisibis. The Roman dispositions were as follows :

About a stone’s throw from the gate of Daras that looks
toward Nisibis a deep trench was dug, interrupted by frequent
ways for crossing. This trench, however, was not in a con-
tinuous right line ; it consisted of five sections. At each end
of a short central trench, which was parallel to the opposite wall
of the city, a trench ran outwards almost at right angles ; and
where each of these perpendicular trenches or horns ” termin-
ated, tv o long ones were dug in opposite directions at right angles,
and consequently almost parallel to the first trench. Between
the trenches and the town Belisarins and Hermogenes were
posted with the infantry. On the left, behind the main ditch
and near the left ''horn,” was a regiment of cavalry under
Buzes, and 300 Heruls under Pharas were stationed on a rising
ground, which the Heruls occupied in the morning, at the

^ Theophanes su|)plies the date. in which a Byzantine professor of

gymnastics, who had accompanied the

2 During the afternoon the armies army unofficially, slew two Persian
were diverted by two single combats, champions.

XVT

THE- FIRST PERSIAN WAR.

suggestion of Pliaras and with.' the'.approval of Belisarius. Out-
side the angle. ..made by the.outermost ditch. .and .the hom,. were
.placed 600 Him.nie .cavalry, ■ under the Huns' Sunicas and Aigan..
The . disposition on the right . wing was exactly symmetrical. \
Cavalry under John (the .son of Nicetas), Cyril, and Marcellus.
occupied the position corresponding to that occupied by ■ .Buzes
on the left, wliile other squadrons of Humiic horse, led by Simas
and Ascan, were posted in the angle.

Half of the Persian forces stood in a long line opposite to
the Eoman dispositions, the other half was kept in reserve at
some distance in the rear. The mihran commanded the centre,
Baresmaiias the left vdng, and Pityaxes the right. The corps
of Immortals, the flower of the army, was reserved for a supreme
occasion. The details of the battle have been described by a
competent eye-witness J

As soon as noon was past the barbarians began the action. They had
reserved the engagement for this hour of the dajr because they are them-
selves in the habit of eating only in the evening, while the Romans eat
at noontide, so that they counted on their offering a less vigorous resist-
ance if they w'ere attacked fasting. At first each side discharged volleys
of arrows and the air was obscured with them ; the barbarians shot more
darts, but many fell on both sides. Fresh relays of the barbarians were
always coming up to the front, unperceived by their adversaries ; yet the

^ Procopius, J5.P. i. 14. A diagram will make the arrangement of the
forces clear.

ZD cz:

PERSIAN ARMY ^

. izizizzziiii z z zizz: ~ '.:z:: z :: : i czzzzzzzzi' ■

Pityaxes Perozes Baresmanas

Hill

Heruls

Trench A

Cavalry (Buzes)

Huns Huns

Trench A^

Cavalry (John &c.)

Infantry (Belisarius, Hermo^enes)

Wall of Dams

HISTORY OF THE EATER ROMAN EMPIRE xmmy

Romans had by no means the worst of it. For a wind blew in the faces
of the Persians and hindered to a considerable degree their missiles from
operating with effect. When both sides had expended ail their arrows,
they used their spears, hand to hand. The left wing of the Romans was
pressed most hardly. For the Cadisenes, who fought at this point with
Pityaxes, had advanced suddenly in large numbers, and having routed
their opponents, pressed them hard as they ffed, and slew many. When
Sunicas and Aigan with their Huns saw this they rushed on the Gadisenes
at Ml gallop. But Pharas and his Heruls, who were posted on the hill,
were before them (the Huns) in falling on the rear of the enemy and
performhig marvellous exploits. But when the Cadisenes saw the cavalry
of Sunicas also coming against them from the side, they turned and fled.
The rout was conspicuous when the Romans joined together and great
slaughter was inflicted on the enemy.

The mihran [meanwhile] secretly sent the Immortals with other regi-
ments to the left wing. When Belisarius and Hermogenes saw them,
they commanded Sunicas, Aigan, and their Huns, to go to the angle on
the right where Simas and Ascan were stationed, and placed behind them
many of the retainers of BeHsarius. Then the left wing of the Persians,
led by Baresmanas, along with the Immortals, attacked the Roman right
wdng at full speed. And the Romans, miable to withstand the onset,
fled. Then those who were stationed in the angle (the Huns, etc.) attacked
the pursuers with great ardour. And coming athwart the side of the
Persians they cleft their line in two unequal portions, the larger number
on the right and a few on the left. Among the latter was the standard-
bearer of Baresmanas, whom Smiicas killed with his lance. The foremost
of the Persian pursuers, apprehending their danger, turned from their
pursuit of the fugitives to oppose the attackers. But this movement
placed them between enemies on both sides, for the fugitive party per-
ceived what was, occurring and ralhed. Then the other Persians and the
corps of the Immortals, seeing the standard lowered and on the ground,
rushed with Baresmanas against the Romans in that quarter. The Romans
met them, and Sunicas slew Baresmanas, hurling him to earth from his
horse. Then the barbarians fell into great panic, and forgot their valour
and fled in utter disorder. And the Romans closed them in and
slew about five thousand. And thus both armies were entirely set in
motion ; that of the Persians for retreat and that of the Romans for pur-
suit. All the infantry of the defeated army threw away their shields, and
were caught and slain pell-mell. Yet the Romans pursued only for a
short distance, for Belisarius and Hermogenes would not permit them to
go further, lest the Persians, compelled by necessity, should turn and rout
them if they followed rashly ; and they deemed it sufficient to keep the
victory untarnished, this being the first defeat experienced by the Persians
for a long time past.^

It will be observed that this battle — the first of wbicb we have
any full description since the fourth century — ^was fought and

^ It is curious that Zacharias, ix. 3, in his notice of the battle, does not
mention Belisarius. He names Sunicas, Buzes, and Simuth (Simas ?),

XVI

THE FIRST PERSIANyWAR'

won entirely b}^ cavalry. ^ It has been ^ out that the

dispositions of Belisarius show his “ deliberate purpose to keep
his infantry out of the stress of the fight/’ ^ This was done by
throwing forward the wings, and leaving only a comparatively
short space between them, so that they drew^ upon themselves
the chief attack of the enemy. We are not told how' the Persians
disposed their horse and foot. The foot may have been in the
centre. But the fighting was evidently done by the cavalry,
for the infantry was not efficient. Belisarius, addressing his
soldiers before the battle, described the Persian infantry as a
crowd of miserable peasants who only come into battle to dig
through walls and strip the slain and generally to act as servants
to the soldiers (that is, the cavalry).” We may conjecture that
while in mere numbers the Romans were fighting one to two,
the great excess of the Persian forces was chiefly in the infantry,
and that otherwise they were not so unevenly matched.

About the vsame time the Roman arms were also successful
in Persarmenia, where a victory was gained over an army of
Persarmenians and Sabir auxiliaries, which, if it had not been
overshadowed by the victory of Daras, would have probably
been made more of by the Greek historians.^

After the conspicuous defeat which his army had experienced,
Kavad was not disinclined to resume negotiations, and embassies
passed between the Persian and Roman courts ; ^ but at the last
moment the persuasions and promises of fifty thousand Samari-
tans induced him to break ofi the negotiations on a trifling pretext.
The Samaritans had revolted in a.d. 529, and the fifty thousand,
who had escaped the massacre which attended the suppression
of the rebellion, actuated by the desire of revenge, engaged to
betray Jerusalem and Palestine to the foe of the Empire. The
plot, however, was discovered and forestalled.

In the following spring (a.i). 531), at the instigation of

^ Oman (Art of War^ p. 29), who
has well elucidated the battle. In
one i)oint I disagree with his plan.
The central trench (C) was evidently,
from the description of Procopius,
much shorter than the wing trenches
(A, A.'), and the lines of infantry
must have extended considerably
beyond it on either side. But this
only brings out and confirms his
interpretation of the tactical plan of

Belisarius, to fore© the enemy to
attack the wings.

2 About this time Narses the
Persarmenian, vritli his two brothers,
deserted to Rome (Proc. B,P, i. 15).

® See Proc. R.P. i. 16 ; John Mai,
p. 454. 'Sotiriadis (op. cit. p. 119)
points out the difficulties in the text
and gives a probable solution. For
the Samaritan rising, ib, 445.

86 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Mundliir, in whose advice Eavad had great confidence, fifteen
thousand Persian cavalry under Azareth crossed the Euphrates
at Circesium with the intention of invading Syria. They marched
along the banks of the river to Callinicum, thence by Sura to
Barbalissus, whence taking the western road they pitched their
camp at Gabbula, twelve miles from Chalcis, and harried the
neighbourhood. Meanwhile Belisarius arrived at Chalcis, where
he was joined by Saracen auxiliaries under Harith. His army
was 22,000 strong, but he did not venture to attack the enemy,
who numbered 30,000, and his inactivity aroused considerable
discontent among both officers and soldiers.^ The Hun captain
Sunicas set at naught the general’s orders, and attacking a party
of Persians not only defeated them, but learned from the prisoners
whom he took the Persian plan of campaign, and the intention
of the foe to strike a blow at Antioch itself. Yet the success
of Sunicas did not in the eyes of Belisarius atone for Ms dis-
obedience, and Hermogenes, who arrived at this moment on
the scene of action from Constantinople, arranged with difficulty
the quarrel between the general and the captain. At length
Belisarius ordered an advance against the enemy, who had
meanwhile by their siege engines taken the fortress of Gabbula
(near Chalcis) and other places in the neighbourhood. Laden
with booty, the Persians retreated and reached the point of the
right Euphrates bank opposite to the city of Callinicum, where
they were overtaken by the Eomans. A battle was unavoidable,
and on the 19th of April the armies engaged. What really
happened on this unfortunate day was a matter of doubt even
for contemporaries ; some cast the blame on Belisarius, others
accused the subordinate commanders of cowardice.^

At Callinicum the course of the Euphrates is from west to east.
The battle was fought on the bank of the river, and as the
Persians were stationed to the east of the Eomans, their right
wing and the Eoman left were on the river. Belisarius and his
cavalry occupied the centre ; on the left were the infantry and
the Hunnic cavalry under Sunicas and Simas ; on the right
were Phrygians and Isaurians and the Saracen auxiliaries under

^ Procopius, B.P. p. 92. of the latter, bxit in many cases he

furnishes details omitted by the

^ Compare the conflicting accounts former. The account of Zacharias,
of Procopius {B.F. i. 18), the secretary ix. 4 throws no light, but he mentions
of Belisarius, and Malalas. We have that the wind was blowing in the face
no means of determining the source of the Romans.

XVI

TEE FIRST PERSIAN WAR

their king liarith.^ : The- Persians began the action by a
feigned retreat, which had. the . effect, of drawing from their
position the Hims :on the left wing.; they .then attacked the
.Eoman infantry, left unprotected, and tried to ride them down
and press them into the river. But they were not as successful
as they hoped, and on. this side the .battle was drawn. On the
■Roman right wing the fall of Apscal, the captain of the Plirygian
troops, was followed by the flight of his soldiers ; a panic ensued,
and the Saracens acted like, the Phrygians ; then the Isaurians
made for the river and swam over to an island. How Belisarius
acted, and what the Hun captains were doing in the meantime,
we cannot determine. It was said that Belisarius dismounted,
rallied his men, and made a long brave stand against the charges
of the Persian cavalry. On the other hand, this valiant behaviour
was attributed to Sunicas and Simas, and the general himself
was accused of fleeing with the cowards and crossing to Callinicum.
There is no clear evidence to prove that the defeat was the fault
of Belisarius ; though perhaps an over-confident spirit in his
army prevailed on him to risk a battle against his better judgment.

The Persians retreated, and the remnant of the Roman army
was conveyed across the river to CaUiniciim. Hermogenes^
sent the news of the defeat to Justinian without delay, and the
Emperor despatched Constantiolus to investigate the circum-
vstances of the battle and discover on whom the blame, if any,
rested. The conclusions at which Constantiolus arrived resulted
in the recall of Belisarius and the appointment of Mundus to the
command of the eastern armies.^ It is significant of the differ-

^ I cannot agree with the plan of ® We cannot, I think, infer from
the battle implied by Sotiriadis the recall of Belisarius that the
(p. 123), which would place the verdict of Constantiolus was adverse
Persians west of the Romans. I to him ; on the contrary, if it had
adopt the reverse position, and thus been adverse to him, the informant
bring the statements of Malalas into who furnished Malalas with his
accordance with those of Procopius, narrative, and who was evidently
In the mere fact of the position of unfriendly to Belisarius, would have
troops there is no reason why the certainly stated the fact in distinct
two accounts should differ. Accord- terms. Probably the reason of his
ing to Sotiriadis, “ the northern part ’ ■ recall was the circumstance that a
{to dp/cTi^joK of the Roman bad feeling prevailed between him

army was the right wing ; according and the subordinate commanders ;
to my explanation, it was the left. and Justinian saw that this feeling

2 It may be suspected that Hermo- was a sure obstacle to success. The
genes presented the behaviour of investigation of Constantiolus w^ould
Belisarius ixi a suspicious light. He naturally have shown up these
was a Hun, and sympathised doubt- jealousies and quarrels in the clearest
less with Sunicas and Simas. light.

88 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap

ence between the spirit of tbe Persian and of tbe Eoman govern-
ments that vv'liile Belisarius was recalled, with bonour, after bis
defeat, tbe victorious Azaretb was disgraced. He bad been sent
against Antiocb and be bad not approached it, and bis victory
bad been bought with great losses.

Tbe arms of Mundus were attended with success. Two *
attempts of tbe Persians to take Martyropolis were thwarted,
and they experienced a considerable defeat. But tbe death of
tbe old king Kavad and tbe accession of bis son Cbosroes
(September 13, 531) led to tbe conclusion of a treaty which was
known as '' tbe Endless Peace.’’ Tbe negotiations were con-
ducted on the Eoman side by Hermogenes and Eufinus, who was
a grata persona with Cbosroes, and were protracted during tbe
winter, because tbe Persians were unwilling to restore tbe forts
they bad taken in Lazica. They finally yielded and tbe treaty
was ratified in spring a.d. 532.^ On their part tbe Eomans
restored two important fortresses in Persarmenia.^ The other
conditions were that tbe Emperor should pay 11,000 lbs. of
gold for tbe defence of tbe Caucasian passes, that tbe bead-
quarters of tbe duke of Mesopotamia were no longer to be at
Daras but at Constantia, and that the Iberian refugees at Con-
stantinople might, as they chose, either remain there or return
to their own country.^

This treaty made no change in the frontiers between Eoman
and Persian Armenia. In tbe early years of Cbosroes Persian
Armenia was peaceful and contented under a native vassal
prince and tbe Christians enjoyed full toleration. But at the
same time tbe Armenian Church was drifting apart from Con-
stantinople and Eome. Tbe decisions of Cbalcedon bad been
indeed accepted, but tbe Armenian theologians viewed them
with some suspicion from tbe first ; tbe ecclesiastical policy of
Zeno and Anastasius confirmed them in their doubts ; and tbe
Henotil^on of Zeno bad been approved in a council held in a.d.
491. On tbe restoration of the doctrine of Cbalcedon by Justin

^ In the sixth year of Justinian,
therefore after April 1. J5.P. p. 117.

2 Pharangion and Bolon.

® Procoxhus, B,P, i. 22. John
Mai. xvih. p. 477 states that the two,
monarchs agreed, as brothers, to
supply each other with money or

men in case of need. This may seem
improbable, but such an agreement
seems to have been made in a previous
treaty, see Joshua Styl. c. viii. I
conjecture that this refers to the
treaty of 442 : the stipulated help
consisted of 300 able-bodied men or
300 staters.

XVI THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR 89

the Armenians displayed their Monophysitic leanings, and a
definite and permanent schism between the Armenian and Greek
Chiirches was the result. This separation was the work of the
patriarch .Narses, who secured the' condemnation of the dogma
of the .Two Natures,^ and' 'at the Synod of Diiin .held just, after
• Ins death, in a.d. 551, the independence of the Armenian Church
V was .confirmed and a reform of the calendar was inaugurated.
The Armenian era began on July 11, a.d. 552. The schism
had its political consequences. Chosroes could profit by the
fact that Greek influence declined in Persarmenia and Greek
political agents were less favourably received.

§ 3. The Second War (a.i>. 540--545)

The reign of Chosroes Nushirvan ^ extended over nearly half
of the sixth century, and may be called the golden or at least
the gilded period of the monarchy of the Sassanids. His father
Kavad had prepared the way for his brilliant son, as Philip of
Macedon had prepared the way for Alexander. It was a period of
energetic reforms, in some of which, as in the working out of a new
land system, Chosroes was only continuing what his father had
begun. This system was found to work so well that after their
conquest of Persia the Saracen caliphs adopted it unaltered. In
the general organisation some changes were made. The Persian
empire was divided into four great circumscriptions each of
which was governed by a n%ard>an who had the title of Mng.’’
The military government of these districts was now transferred
to four spahbedhs, the civil government to four pddhospans, and
the marzbans, though allowed to retain the honourable title, were
reduced to second-class rank and were subordinate to the
spahbedhs.^ The most anxious pains of Chosroes were spent
on the army, and it is said that when he reviewed it he used to
inspect each individual soldier. He reduced its cost and in-
creased its efficiency. But he also encouraged literature and
patronised the study of Persian history. Of Ms personal culture
the envy or impartiality of a Greek Mstorian speaks with

^ Perhaps at a synod, c. 527. See The proper form of Nushirvan is
Tournebize, Hist, de VArmenie, i. 90- Anosha-revan = of immortal soul.

91. Le Quien, Or. Christ, i. j>p. 1381- ® For these changes see Stein,

1384. Min Kapitel vom pers. Staate, who

2 Khosru=Hu-srava (fair glory) is (p. 66) would attribute the institution
etymologically identical with ei^-KXeta. of the 4 pMhospans to Kavad.

HISTOE T OE THE LA TER ROMA N EMPIRE chap;

contempt as narrow and superficial;^ on tlie otlier band, lie
has received the praises of an ecclesiastical writer. “ He was a
prudent and wise man, and all his lifetime he assiduously devoted
himself to the perusal of philosophical works. And, as was said,
he took pains to collect the religious books of all creeds, and read
and studied them, that he might learn which were true and wise
and which were foolish. ... He praised the books of the
Christians above all others, and said, ‘ These are true and wise
above those of any other religion.’’’^ As a successful and,
judged by the standards of his age and country, enlightened
ruler, Chosroes stands out in the succession of Sassanid sovrans
much as Justinian stands out in the succession of the later
Eoman emperors.

The Emperor Justinian had, with the energy and thorough-
ness which distinguished the first half of his long reign, made use
of the years of peace to strengthen the defences of the eastern
provinces. Sieges were the characteristic feature of the wars
on the oriental frontier, and walls were wellnigh as important
as men. The fortifications of many of the most important
cities and strongholds had fallen into decay, many had weak
points, some were ill furnished with water. All the important
towns in Mesopotamia and Osrhoene, and not a few of those
in northern Syria were restored, repaired, or partly rebuilt in
the reign of Justinian under the supervision of expert engineers.
An account of these works has been preserved,^ and most of
them were probably executed between a.d. 532 and 539. The
fortresses on the Pontic or Armenian border were similarly
strengthened.^ Here, too, an important administrative change
was made. Eoman Armenia beyond the Euphrates, which had
hitherto been governed by native satraps,^ under the general
control of a ndlitary officer,® was organised as a regular province

Agathias (ii. 28), who asks how Christianity. In the eyes of Pro-
one brought up in the luxury of an copius, Chosroes was the typical
oriental barbarian could be a philo- oriental tyrant, cruel and perfidious,
sopher or a scholar. Por the recep- ® Procopius, book ii.
tion of Greek philosophers at the ^ 16. book iii.

Persian court see p. 370. ® Zeno abolished hereditary siicces-

2 John Eph. vl 20. John apologises sion to the satrapies (except in the
for thus eulogising a Magian and an case of Belabitene), and vested the
enemy. What he says about the nomination in the Emperor (Procop.
king’s Christian proclivities is more i6. in. 1).

edifying than probable. But Chosroes ® The Comes Armemae, who had been
was not fanatical. He allowed one abolished in 528, when the mag, mil.
of his wives and her son to profess per Am. was created. See above', p. 80,

xvi:;; THE SECONB \

UHder a governor .of consular rank,- and, was officially designated.-
as the Fourth Armenia. .The: satraps were, abolished.. Martyro-
polis was the chief town and -residence of the governor.^

, When , Chosroes concluded the Endless Peace with
Justinian, lie. had little idea that, the new Emperor .was about,,:
to embark on great enterprises of conquest. Witliin seven,,
years fro.m that time (a.b. 532-539) Justinian had - overthrown,
the Vandal kingdom of Africa, and had reduced the Moors ; the
subjection of the Ostrogothic lords of Italy was in prospect,
Bosporus and the Crimean Goths were included in the circle
of Roman sway, while the Homerites of southern Arabia ac-
knowledged the supremacy of New Rome. Both his friends and
his enemies said, with hate or admiration, The whole earth
cannot contain him ; he is already scrutinising the aether and
the remote places beyond the ocean, if he may win some new
world.’' ^ The eastern potentate might well apprehend danger
to his own kingdom in the expansion of the Roman Empire by
the reconquest of its lost provinces. We may consider it natural
enough that Chosroes should have seized or invented a pretext
to renew hostilities, when it seemed but too possible that if
Justinian were allow’'ed to continue his career of conquest un-
disturbed the Romans might come with larger armies and
increased might to extend their dominions in the East at the
expense of the Sassanid empire.

Hostilities between the Saracens of Hira and their enemies
of Ghassan supplied Chosroes with the pretext he desired. The
Roman provinces had constantly sufiered from the inroads of
the Ghassanid tribes who obeyed no common ruler, and one of
the early achievements of Justinian’s reign was the creation of
a Ghassanid state under the government of a supreme phylarch,
nominated by the Emperor. This client state formed a counter-
poise to the Lakhmids of Hira, who were clients of Persia.
Harith was appointed phylarch, and received the title of king
and the dignity of patrician.^ The cause of contention at this

^ A.D. 536. Justinian, iVo?7. 31, § 3. Theophanes, a.m. 6056. Haritli
At the same time considerable changes reigned c. a.d, 628-570. Mimdhir,
were made in the East Pontic pro- the veteran chief of Hira, was
vinces of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Armenia, similarly alio wed by the Persians to
which wiU be noticed in another bear the title of kmg (Prooop. ib.),
place (below, p. 344). He reigned for about 50 years (a.d.

2 Procopius, jB.P. ii. 3 (p. 160). 508-554) ; see Tabari, p. 170 (Noel-

^ See Procopius, J5.P. i. 17; deke’s note). He was exceptionally

HISTOR Y OF THE LA TER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

jimcture between tKe two Saracen powers was a tract of waste
land called Strata, to the south of Palmyra, a region barren of
trees and fruit, scorched dry by the sun, and used as a pasture
for sheep. Harith the Ghassanide could appeal to the fact that
the name Strata was Latin, and could adduce the testimony of
the most venerable elders that the sheep-walk belonged to his
tribe. Mundhir, the rival sheikh, contented /himself with the
more practical argument that for years back the shepherds had
paid him tribute. Two arbitrators were sent by the Emperor,
Strategius, Count of the Sacred Largesses, and Summus, the
duke of Palestine. This arbitration supplied Chosroes with a
pretext for breaking the peace. He alleged that Summus made
treasonable offers to Mundhir, attempting to shake his allegiance
to Persia ; and he professed to have in his possession a letter of
Justinian to the Ephthalites, urging them to invade his dominions.^
About the same time suggestions from without urged the
thoughts of Chosroes in the direction which they had already
taken. An embassy arrived from Witigis, king of the Ostrogoths,
now hard pressed by Belisarius, and pleaded with Chosroes to
act against the common enemy (a.b. 539). ^ Another embassy
arrived from the Armenians making similar representations,
deploring and execrating the Endless Peace, and denouncing the
tyranny and exactions of Justinian, against whom they had
revolted. The history of Armenia, now a Eoman province,^
had been unfortunate during the years that followed the peace.
The first governor, Amazaspes, was accused by one Acacius of
treachery, and, with the Emperor’s consent, was slain by the
accuser, who was himself appointed to succeed his victim.
Acacius was relentless in exacting a tribute of unprecedented
magnitude (£18,000) ; and some Armenians, intolerant of his
cruelty, slew him and fled. The Emperor immediately despatched

barbarous. He sacrificed the son of
his enemy Harith (Procop. B.P. ii.
28) and on another occasion 400 nuns
(cp. Noeldeke, Ic.) to the goddess
Uzza. Por these kingdoms see Huart,
Hist des ArabeSj chap. iv.

^ Procopius says that he does not
know whether these allegations were
true or false {B.P. ii. 1). The second
Book of his Be bello Persico is our
main source for the war which ensued.
It comes down to the end of a.d. 549.

2 gee below, chap, xviii. § 9. The
reader may ask how the details of
this embassy were known. Pro-
copius tells us in another place {B.P.
ii 14) that the interpreter, returning
from Persia, was captured near
Gonstantia by John, duke of Mesopo-
tamia, and gave an account of the
embassy. The pseudo-bishop and
his attendant remained in Persia.

® See above, p. 90.

XVI THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR

Sittas, the Master of Soldiers per Armeniam, to recall the people
to a sense of obedieiicej and, when Sittas showed himself inclined
to use the softer methods of persuasion, insisted that he should
act with sterner vigour. The rebellion became general Sittas
was accidentally killed soon afterwards, but the rebels,. found
themselves unequal to coping with the Roman forces, which
were then placed under the command of Buzes, and they decided
to appeal to the Persian monarch. The servitude of their neigh”
hours the Tzani and the imposition of a Roman duke over the
Lazi of Colchis confirmed them in their fear and detestation of
Roman policy.

Accordingly Ohosroes, in the autumn of a.b. 539, decided to
begin hostilities in the following spring, and did not deign to
answer a pacific letter from the Roman Emperor, conveyed by
Anastasius, whom he retained an unwilling guest at the Persian
court.^ The war which thus began lasted five years, and in
each year the king himself took the field. He invaded Syria,
Colchis, and Commagene in successive campaigns ; in a.d. 543
he began but did not carry out an expedition against the northern
provinces ; in the next year he invaded Mesopotamia ; and in
A.D. 545 a peace was concluded.

I. Invasion of Syria (a.d. 540) ^

Avoiding Mesopotamia, Chosroes advanced northwards with
a large army along the left bank of the Euphrates. He passed
the triangular city of Circesium, but did not care to assault it,
because its vralls, built by Diocletian, were too strong ; while he
disdained to delay at the town of Zenobia (Halebiya), named
after the queen of Palm 3 rra, because it was too insignificant.
But when he approached Sura his horse neighed and stamped
the ground ; and the magi, who attended the king, seized the
incident as an omen that the city would be taken. On the
first day of the siege the governor was slain, and on the second
the bishop of the place visited the Persian camp in the name of

^ Theodora also wrote a letter to 540 or even 541. Chosroes made use
Zabergan, whom she knew personally of it to quell discontent among his
as he had come to Constantinople troops, arguing that a state must be
as an envoy, requesting him to urge weak in which women intervened in
Chosroes to preserve i:)eace. But this public affairs. Procopius, R,A, 32-36.
letter may have been sent later, in y Procopius, B.P. ii. 5-14.

HISTORY OF TEE LATER ROMAH EMPIRE chap.

the dispirited inhabitants, and. implored Chosroes with tears to
spare the town. He tried to appease the implacable foe with
an offering of birds, wine, and bread, and engaged that the men
of Sura would pay a sufficient ransom. Chosroes dissembled

.Emeiy Walker l.td. sc,

MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERSIAN WARS.

the wrath he felt against the Surenes because they had not
submitted immediately ; he received the gifts and said that he
would consult the Persian nobles regarding the ransom ; and
he dismissed the bishop, who was well pleased with the interview,
under the honourable escort of Persian notables, to whom the
monarch had given secret instructions.

Having given his directions to the escort, Chosroes ordered

XVI.

TSE:;SEG0ND EERSIAN^mAM

Ms army to stand in readiness, and to run, at Ml, speed to the
city when lie gave the signal. ' When they reached the walls
the Persians sainted the bishop and stood outside ; but the
men of Sura, seeing him in Mgh spirits and observing how he
was escorted with great honour by the Persians, put aside all
thoughts of suspicion, and, opening the gate wide, received their
priest with clapping of hands and acclamation. And when all
had passed witMn, the porters pushed the gate to shut it, but
the Persians placed a stone, wMch they had provided, between
the threshold and the gate. The porters pushed harder, but
for all their violent exertions they could not succeed in forcing
the gate into the threshold'-groove. And they did not venture
to throw it open again, as they apprehended that it was held by
the enemy. Some say that it was a log of wood, not a stone,
that was inserted by the Persians. The men of Sura had hardly
discovered the guile, ere Chosroes had come with all his army
and the Persians had forced open the gate. In a few moments
the city was in the power of the enemy.” ^ The houses were
plundered ; many of the inhabitants were slain, the rest were
carried into slavery, and the city was burnt down to the ground.
Then the Persian king dismissed Anastasius, bidding him inform
the Emperor in what place he had left Chosroes the son of Kavad.

Perhaps it was merely avarice, perhaps it was the prayers
of a captive named Euphemia, whose beauty attracted the
desires of the conqueror, that induced Chosroes to treat with
unexpected leniency the prisoners of Sura. He sent a message
to Candidus, the bishop of Sergiopolis, suggesting that he should
ransom the 12,000 captives for 200 lbs. of gold (15s. a head).
As Candidus had not, and could not immediately obtain, the
sum, he was allowed to stipulate in writing that he would pay
it within a year’s time, under penalty of paying double and
resigning his bishopric. Pew of the redeemed prisoners survived
long the agitations and tortures they had undergone.

Meanwhile the Eoman general Buzes was at Hierapolis.
Nominally the command in the East was divided between Bujzes
and Belisarius : the provinces beyond the Euphrates being
assigned to the former, Syria and Asia Minor to the latter. But
as Belisarius had not yet returned from Italy, the entire army
was under the orders of Buzes.

Procopius, B.P. ii. 5.

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Informed of tlie presence of Cliosroes in the Eoman pro-
vinces, Justinian despatched his cousin Germanus to Antioch,
with a small body of three hundred soldiers.^ The fortifications
of the Queen of the East did not satisfy the careful inspec-
tion of Germanus, for although the lower parts of the city were
adequately protected by the Orontes, which washed the bases
of the houses, and the higher regions seemed secure on im-
pregnable heights, there rose outside the walls adjacent to the
citadel 2 a broad rock, almost as lofty as the wall, which would
inevitably present to the besiegers a fatal point of vantage.
Competent engineers said that there would not be sufficient
time before the arrival of Chosroes to remedy this defect by
removing the rock or enclosing it within the walls. Accordingly
Germanus, despairing of resistance, sent Megas, the bishop of
Beroea, to divert the Persian advance from Antioch by the
influence of money or entreaties. The army had already crossed
the Euphrates, and Megas arrived as it was approaching Hiera-
polis, from which Buzes had withdrawn a large part of the garrison.
He was informed by the great king that it was his unalterable
intention to subdue Syria and Cilicia. The bishop was con-
strained or induced to accompany the army to Hierapolis,
which was strong enough to defy a siege, and was content to
purchase immunity by a payment of 2000 lbs. of silver. Chosroes
then consented to retire without assaulting Antioch on the
receipt of 1000 lbs. of gold (£45,000), and Megas returned speedily
with the good news, while the enemy proceeded more leisurely
to Beroea.^ Prom this city the avarice of the Sassanid demanded
double the amount he had exacted at Hierapolis ; the Beroeans
gave him half the sum, affirming that it was all they had ; but
the extortioner refused to be satisfied, and proceeded to demolish
the city.

From Beroea he advanced to Antioch, and demanded the
1000 lbs. with which Megas had undertaken to redeem it ; and
it is said that he would have been contented to receive a smaller
sum. Germanus and the Patriarch had already departed to
Cilicia, and the Antiochenes would probably have paid the
money had not the arrival of six thousand soldiers from Phoenicia
Libanensis, led by Theoctistus and Molatzes, infused into their

^ Cp. John Mai. bk. xviii. p. 480.

Contin, Marcelt^ s.a.

2 The citadel was called Orocasias.
® Probably via Batnae.

XVI THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR 97

hearts a rash and unfortunate confidence. Julian, an Imperial
secretary, who had arrived at Antioch as an ambassador, bade
the inhabitants resist the extortion ; and Paul, the interpreter
of Cliosroes, who approached the walls and counselled them to
pay the money, was; almost slain. ; Hot content with defying
the enemy by a refusal, the men of Antioch stood on their walls
and. loaded .Cliosroes^ with torrents of scurrilous . abuse, .'which
might have inflamed a milder monarch.

The siege wliich ensued was short. It seems not to have
occurred to the besieged that they should themselves occupy the
dangerous roclv outside the citadel, and it was seized by the enemy.
The defence at first wns brave. Between the towers, which crowned
tlie walls at intervals, platforms of -wooden beams were suspended
by ropes attached to the tovrers, that a greater number of
defenders might man the walls at once. But during the fighting
the ropes ga ve way and the suspended soldiers were precipitated,
some without, some within the walls ; the men in the towers
were seized with panic and left their posts. The confusion was
increased by a rush made to the gates, occasioned by a false
report that Buzes was coming to the rescue ; and a multitude
of w'omen and children were crushed or trampled to death.
But the gate leading to the remote suburb of Daphne was pur-
posely left unblocked by the Persians ; Chosroes seems to have
desired that the Roman soldiers and their officers should be
allowed to leave the city unmolested ; and some of the in-
habitants escaped with the departing army. But the yomig
men of the Hippodrome factions made a valiant and hopeless
stand against superior numbers ; and the city was not
entered without a considerable loss of life, which Chosroes pre-
tended to deplore. It is said that two illustrious ladies cast
themselves into the Orontes, to escape the cruelties of oriental
licentiousness.

It was nearly three hundred years since Antioch had ex-
perienced the presence of a human foe, though it suffered
frequently and grievously from the malignity of nature. The
Sassanid Sapor had taken the city in the ill-starred reign of
Valerian, but it was kindly dealt -with then in comparison with
its treatment by Chosroes. The cathedral was stripped of its
wealth in gold and silver and its splendid marbles. Orders
were given that the whole town should be burnt, except the

^rnr. tt

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

catliedral, and tte sentence of the relentless conqueror was
executed- as far as was practicable.

While the work of demolition was being carried out, Ohosroes
was treating with the: ambassadors ^ of Justinian, and expressed
himself ready to make peace, on condition that he received 5000
lbs. of gold, paid immediately, and an annual sum of 500 lbs.
nominally for the defence of the Caspian Gates. While the
ambassadors returned with this answer to Byzantium, Chosroes
advanced to Seleiicia, the port of Antioch, and looked upon
the waters of the Mediterranean ; it is related that he took a
solitary bath in the sea and sacrificed to the sun. In returning
he visited Daphne, which was not included in the fate of Antioch,
and thence proceeded to Apamea, whose gates he was invited
to enter with a guard of 200 soldiers. All the gold and silver
in the town was collected to satisfy his greed, even to the jewelled
case in which a piece of the true cross was reverently preserved.
He spared the precious relic itself, which for him was devoid
of value. The city of Chalcis purchased its safety by a sum of
200 lbs. of gold ; and having exhausted the provinces to the
west of the Euphrates, Chosroes decided to coiitiiiiie his cam-
paign of extortion in Mesopotamia, and crossed the river at
Obbane, near Barbalissus, by a bridge of boats. Edessa, the
great stronghold of western Mesopotamia, was too strong itself
to fear a siege, but paid 200 lbs. of gold for the immunity of
the surrounding territory from devastation.^ At Edessa, am-
bassadors arrived from Justinian, bearing his consent to the
terms proposed by Chosroes ; but in spite of this the Persian
did not shrink from making an attempt to take Daras on Ms
homeward march.

The fortress of Daras, which Anastasius had erected to
replace the long-lost Nisibis as an outpost in eastern Meso-
potamia, was built on three hills, on the highest of wiiich stood
the citadel. One of the other heights projected from higher
hills behind and could not be suiTounded hj the walls, which

^ Julian, mcntioncxl above, and farmers who bad no money gave a
Jolin, son of Riilinns (doubtless the sheep or an* ass, prostitutes stripi'jed
same Rufinua who had been employed off their oi-n aments. But, according
by Anastasias as ambassador to to Procopius {B.P. ii. 13), Buzes,
Kavad). who happened to be there, seized the

^ The people of Edessa were money that was collected and allowed
generous enough to subscribe to the captives to be carried off to
ransom tlie Jmtiochene captives ; Persia.

XVI

THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR

were built across it. Tliere were two walls between wliicb
stretclieci a space of fifty feet, used by tlie inJiabitaiits for tlie
pastiire of domestic, amnials. Tke - climate of Mesopotamia, tlie
severe siiow^s of wdnter followed -.by tlie burning liea.ts of snrnincr,
tried tlie strengtli of masonry, and Jiistinian found it necessary
to repair tlie fortress. ^ more tliaii repair it. He

raised the inner wall b}- a '■.ne^v story, so that it reached the
unusual height of si,xty feet," and he secured the supply of water
by diverting the river, which flow'ed outside the walls, into the
town by means of a channel worked betw^een the rocks. He
also built barracks for the soldiers, so that the inhabitants were,
spared the burden of quartering them.^

Chosroes attacked the city on the western side, and burned
the w'estern gates of the outer wmil, but no Persian ivas bold
enough to enter the interspace. He then began operations on
the eastern, the only side of the rock-bound city where digging
was possible, and ran a mine under the outer wall. The vigilance
of the besieged was bafhed until the subterranean passage had
reached the foundations of the outer wall ; but then, according
to the story, a human or superhuman form in the guise of a
Persian soldier advanced near the wall under the pretext of
collecting discharged missiles, and while to the besiegers he
seemed to be mocking the men on the battlements, he was really
informing the besieged of the danger that was creeping upon
them unawmres. The Romans then, by the counsel of Theo-
dore, a clever engineer, dug a deep transverse trench between
the two walls so as to intersect the line of the enemy’s excava-
tion ; the Persian biinowers suddenly ran or fell into the Roman
pit ; those in front ‘were slain, and the rest fled back iinpursued
through the dark passage. Disgusted at this failure, Chosroes
raised the siege on receiving from the men of Daras 1000 lbs.
of silver. Justinian, indignant at, his enemy’s breach of faith,
broke off the negotiations for peace.

When he returned to Ctesiphon the idctorious monarch
built a new city near his capital, on the model of Antioch, with
whose spoils it was beautified, and settled therein the captive
inhabitants of the original city, the remainder of whose days

^ See J?rocopm£!, Be aed. ii. 1 ; B,P. discoveries of Sacliau on the site
ii. 13. The tovers were 100 feet {Beise in Syrien und Memjyotamien,
high. The details of the description of 305 Cp. Chapot, o%>. cit, 313

Procopius have been verified by the aqq.

100 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

was perhaps more happily spent than if the generosity of the
Edessenes had achieved its intention. The name of the new
town, according to Persian writers/ was Riimia (Rome) ; accord-
ing to Procopius it was called by the joint names of Chosroes
and Antioch (Chosro-Antiocheia) A

II. The Persian Invasion of Colchis, and the campaign of
Beliswrms in Mesopotamia (a.I). 541)

From this time forth the kingdom of Lazica or Colchis began
to play a more important part in the wars between the Romans
and Persians. This country seems to have been then far poorer
than it is to-day ; the Lazi depended for corn, salt, and other
necessary articles of consumption on Roman merchants, and
gave in exchange skins and slaves ; while at present Mingrelia,
though wiotchedly cultivated, produces maize, millet, and barley
in abimdance ; the trees are everywhere festooned with vines,
which grow naturally, and yield a very tolerable wine ; while
salt is one of the main products of the neighbouring Georgia.” ^
The Lazi were dependent on the Roman Empire, but the depend-
ence consisted not in paying tribute but in committing the choice
of their kings to the wisdom of the Roman Emperor. The
nobles were in the habit of choosing wives among the Romans ;
Giibazes, the king who invited Chosroes to enter his country,
was the son of a Roman lady, and had served as a silentiary
in the Byzantine palace.^ The Lazic kingdom was a useful
barrier against the trans-Caucasian Scythian races, and the in-
habitants defended the mountain passes without causing any
outlay of men or money to the Empire.

But when the Persians seized Iberia it was considered necessary
to secure the country which barred them from the sea by the

1 See Tabari, pp. 34:1-342 ; Rawiin-
son, Seventh Oriental Monarchy, p. 395.
Tlie new Antioch had one remarkable
privilege ; slaves who fled thither, if
acknow'iedged by its citizens as kins-
men, were exempted from the pursuit
of their Persian masters.

" Procopius, B.F. ii. 15-19. Antioch
itself was rebuilt by Justinian. The
circuit of the wall w'as contracted,
and the high clihs of Orocasias were
not included within the line. The
course of the Orontes w^as diverted

so that it should flow by the new walls.
Procop. He aed. ii. 10.

® Rawlinson, cit. p. 406, where
the facts are quoted from Haxt-
hauseirs Transcaucasia. Procopius
himself mentions [B.O. iv. 14) that
the district of Muchiresis in Colchis
was very fertile, producing wine and
various kinds of com.

^ See Proeop. B.P. ii. 29 ; B.Q. iv.
9. Previous Lazic kings had married
Roman ladies of senatorial family.

XVI

THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR

101

protection of Roman soldiers, and ■the’ tinpopiilar general Peter,
originally a Persian captive, was not one to make the natives
rejoice , at, the .presence .of their defenders. Peter’s successor
was John Tzibiis, a man of obscure, station, whose imscrupulons
skill in raising money made Mm a useful tool to the Emperor.
He was an able man, for it was by his advice that Justhiian built
the town of Petra, to the south of the.Phasis.^ Here he established
a monopoly and oppressed the natives. It was no longer possible
for the Lazi to deal directly with the traders and buy their corn
and salt at a reasonable price ; John Tzibus, perched in the
fortress of Petra, acted as a middleman, to whom both buyers
and sellers were obliged to resort, and pay the highest or receive
the lowest prices. In justihcation of this monopoly it may be
remarked that it was the only practicable way of imposing a tax
on the Lazi; and the imposition of a tax might have been deemed
a necessary and just compensation for the defence of the oomitry,
notwithstanding the facts that it was garrisoned solely in Roman
interests, and that the garrison itself was unwelcome to the
natives.

Exasperated by these grievances, Gubazes, the king of Lazica,
sent an embassy to Chosroes, inviting Mm to recover a venerable
kingdom, and pointing out that if he expelled the Romans from
Lazica he would have access to the Euxine, whose waters could
convey his forces against Byzantium, wMle he would have an
opportunity of establishing a connexion with those other enemies
of Rome, the barbarians north of the Caucasus.^ Chosroes
consented to the proposals of the ambassadors ; and keeping
Ms real intention secret, pretended that pressing affairs required
his presence in Iberia.

Under the guidance of the envoys, Chosroes and Ms army
passed into the thick woods and difficult hill-passes of Colchis,
cutting down as they went lofty and leafy trees, which hung
in dense array on the steep acclivities, and using the trunks to
smooth or render passable rugged or dangerous places. When

^ Tlie site of Petra is micertam. ® Another element in the Oolchian
It has been identified with Ujenar policy of Chosroes w^as the circum-
(by Dubois de M;ont]->ereux, Voyage stance that if Lazica 'were Persian,
iii. 86), 15miiesS.E. the Iberians would have no power
of the mouth of the Phasis and 12 in the rear to support them if they
miles from the coast. But the descrip- revolted. Compare Procopius, B.P.
tion of Procojuus, B.C'. ii. 17, suggests ii. 28.
that it was quite close to the sea.

102 HISTORY OF THE LjITER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

tkey had penetrated to the middle of the country, they were met
by Gubazes, who paid oriental homage to the great king. The
cldef object was to capture Petra, the stronghold of Eoman
pow^er, and dislodge the tradesman, as Chosroes contemptuously
termed the monopolist, J ohn Tzibus. A detachment of the army
under Aniabedes was sent on in advance to attack the fortress ;
and when this officer arrived before the vralls he found the gates
shut, yet the place seemed totally deserted, and not a trace of
an inhabitant was visible. A messenger was sent to inform
Chosroes of this surprise ; the rest of the army hastened to the
spot ; a battering-ram was applied to the gate, while the monarch
watched the proceedings from the top of an adjacent hill.
Suddenly the gate flew open, and a multitude of Eoman soldiers
rushing forth overwhelmed those Persians who were applying
the engine, and, having killed many others who were drawn up
hard by, speedily retreated and closed the gate. The unfortunate
Aniabedes (according to others, the officer who was charged
with the operation of the battering-ram) was impaled for the
crime of being vanquished by a huckster.

A regular siege now began. It was inevitable that Petra
should be captured, says our historian Procopius, in the vein of
Herodotus,^ and therefore John, the governor, was slain by an
accidental missile, and the garrison, deprived of their com-
mander, became careless and lax. On one side Petra was pro-
tected by the sea, landwards inaccessible cliffs defied the sldll
or bravery of an assailant, save only where one narrow entrance
divided the line of steep cliffs and admitted of access from the
plain. This gap between the rocks was filled by a long wall, the
ends of which were commanded by towers constructed in an
unusual manner, for instead of being hollow all the way up, they
were made of solid stone to a considerable height, so that they
could not be shaken by the most powerful engine. But oriental
inventiveness imdermined these wonders of solidity. A mine
was bored under the base of one of the towers, the lower stones
were removed and replaced by wood, the demolishing force of
fire loosened the upper layers of stones, and the tower fell. This
success was decisive, as the besieged recognised ; they readily
capitulated, and the victors did not lay hands on any property
in the fortress save the possessions of the defimct governor.

Kal mrpa]/ dXOi/ai.

XVI . THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR I OS

Having placed u Persiau garrisoii in Petra, Cliosrcji^s reiiiaiiiecl
no longer in La.zica,, for the news liad reached iiiiii that Belisaiiiis
was about to invade Assyria, and he iiiirried back to defend his
dominions.

Belisariiis, accoi.iipani€d by..all- the -Goths wlioni. he had led
ill triiiinpli from Italy, -except, the fGothic king himself, had
proceeded in the spring to. take - coiiiinand of the eastern army
ill Mesopotamia.-^ Ilavingdound out by spies that no invasion
was meditated by Cliosroes, whose presence was demanded in
Iberia — the design on Lazica was kept efiectually concealed—
the Eoiiiaii general determined to lead the whole army, along
with the auxiliary Saracens -of Ilarith into Persian territory.
It is reiiiarkabie that in this. campaign although Belisaiius was
chief ill coiiiiiiaiid lie never' >seems- to. -have- ventured or cared to
execute Ms strategic plans, without .-consulting the advice of the
other oliicers. It is difficult,' to say- -whether this w^as due to
distrust of liis owm judgment .and- the reflexion -that many of
the subordinate -generals had more - recent experience of: Persian
warfare than or to a -fear, that -some of the leaders in

an army composed,; .of; soldiers -of - many - .races, might prove
refractory and impatient of - too -'peremptory orders. At Daras
a council of war decided on, an. immediate' advance, „

The army marched towards 'Nisibis, -wffiich was too strong
to be attacked, and moved forw^ard-to the fortress of Sisaurana,
where an assault was at first repulsed ' with loss.*^ Belisaiius
decided to invest the place, but as the Saracens were useless
for siege warfare, he sent Haiith- and;, his troops, accompanied
by 12(^0 of Ms own retainers, to invade and harry Assyria, in-
teiidiiig to cross the Tigris himself; .when he had taken the fort.
The garrison wnis not supplied with -provisions, and soon consented
to surreiidfir ; all the Christians 'were', - dismissed free, the fire-
worshippers were sent to Byzantium^ to await the Emperor's
pleasure, and the fort was levelled'.to the ground.

Meanwhile the plundering expedition of Harith was successful,

The Italian generals accompanied --®-. Between Msibis and the Tigris
Belisaiius. One of them, Valerian, (the -same'- as Sisara in Aniiii. Marc,
succeeded M-artiii as general in ' -xviii. .10.- 1). ■- ■

Armenia; Martin had been trans- , * These Persians, with, their leader
f erred to Mesopotamia. Bleschanes, were afterwards sent to

Italy . against tlio Goths. It w’as
- This is duelt on in one of the Roman policy to employ Persian
speeches which Procopius places in captives against the Goths, Gothic
the mouth of J3elisarius {BJ\ ii. 16). caiitives against the Persians.

104 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

but lie played his allies false. Desiring to retain all the spoils
for hiiuself, he invented a story to rid himself of the Romans
who accompanied him,^ and he sent no information to Belisarius.
This was not the only cause of anxiety that vexed the generaFs
mind. The Roman, especially the Thracian, soldiers were not
inured to the intense heat of the dry Mesopotamian climate
in midsummer, and disease broke out in the army, demoralised .
by physical exhaustion. All the soldiers were anxious to return
to more clement districts. There was nothing to be done but
yield to the prevaihng wish, 'which was shared by all the generals.
It cannot be claimed that the campaign of Belisarius accomplished
much to set off against the acquisition of Petra by the Persians.

It "was indeed whispered by the generaFs enemies that he had
culpably missed a great opportunity. They insinuated that if,
after the capture of Sisaurana, he had advanced beyond the
Tigris he might have carried the war up to the walls of Ctesiphon.
But he sacrificed the interests of the Empire to private motives,
and retreated in order to meet his wife who had just arrived
in the East and punish her for her infidelity.^ The scandals may
be true, but it is impossible to say how far they affected the
military conduct of Belisarius.

III. The Persian Invasion of Oommagene [a.d. M2) ^

The first act of Chosroes when he crossed the Euphrates in
spring was to send 6000 soldiers to besiege the town of Sergiopolis
because the bishop Candidus, who had undertaken to pay the
ransom of the Surene captives two years before, was unable
to collect the amount, and found Justinian deaf to his appeals
for aid. But the town lay in a desert, and the besiegers were
soon obliged to abandon their design in consequence of the
drought. It was not the Persian’s intention to waste his time
in despoiling the province of Euphratensis ; he purposed to
invade Palestine and plunder the treasures of Jerusalem. But
this exploit was reserved for his grandson of the same name,
and the invader returned to his kingdom having accomplished

^ Trajan and John the Glutton
were in command of these 1200
viraa-mo-rai. When they separated
from Harith they proceeded to
TheodosiopoHs, in order to avoid

a hostile army which did not exist.

2 Procopius, H.A. 17-25. For the
story see above, p. 60.

® Procopius, B.P. il 20, 21.

XVI THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR 105

almost notliiiig. This speedy retreat was probably due to the
outbreak of the Plague in Persia^ though. the Roman historian
attributes it to the address of Belisarius.

Belisarius travelled by. post-horses {mredi) from .Constantinople
to the „ Eiiphratesian province, , .and . taking ' up Ms . quarters at
.Eiiropus^, on the Euphrates, he .collected there the bulk of
■the troops who ;w.ere dispersed throughout the. province, in ..its,'
..various cities. . Chosroes. was curious about the personality of
Belisarius, of whom he had heard so much, — ^the conqueror of
the Vandals, the conqueror of the Goths, who had led two fallen
.monarchs in triumph to the feet of Justinian. 'Accordingly
he sent Abandanes ^ as an envoy to the Roman general on the
pretext of learning why Justinian had not sent ambassadors
to negotiate a peace.

Belisarius did not mistake the true nature of this mission,
and determined to make an impression. Having sent a body
of one thousand cavalry to the left bank of the river, to harass
the enemy if they attempted to cross, he selected six thousand
tall and comely men from his army and proceeded with them
to a place at some distance from his camp, as if on a hunting
expedition. He had constructed for himself a pavilion ^ of thick
canvas, which he set up, as in a desert spot, and when he knew
that the ambassador was approaching, he arranged bis soldiers
with careful negligence. On either side of him stood Thracians
and Illyrians, a little farther off the Goths, then Heruls, Vandals,
and Moors ; all were arrayed in close-fitting linen tunics and
drawers, without a cloak or epomfs to disguise the symmetry
of their forms, and, like hunters, each carried a whip as well as
some weapon, a sword, an axe, or a bow. They did not stand
still, as men on duty, but moved carelessly about, glancing idly
and indifferently at the Persian envoy, who soon arrived and
marvelled.

To the envoy’s complaint that the Emperor had not sent an
embassy to his master, Belisarius answered, wuth an air of
amusement, It is not the habit of men to transact their affairs
as Chosroes has transacted his. Others, when aggrieved, send
an embassy first, and if they fail in obtaining satisfaction, resort

^ Yerabus. Cp. Cbax^ot, op. cit ® Uairiik^ihv^ whicli Procopius intro -
p. 280. duces with one of Ms usual apolo-

^ One of the ^aciXucoi ypctfiparus getic formulae for words that are not
{notar ii). Greek.

106 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROM 4N EMPIRE chap.

to war ; but lie attacks and then talks of peace.'’ The presence
and bearing of the Eoman general, and the appearance of his
followers, hmitiiig indifl'erently at a short distance from the
Persian camp without any precautions, made a proioimd im-
pression on Abaiidanes, and he persuaded his master to abandon
the proposed expedition. Chosroes may have reflected that the
triumph of a king over a general would be no humiliation for
the general, while the triumph of a mere general over a king
would be very humiliating for the king; such at least is the
coloiiriiig that the generaFs historian puts on the king's retreat.
According to the same ■ authority, Chosroes hesitated to risk
the passage of the Euphrates- while the enemy was so near, but
Belisarius, with his, smaller numbers, did not attempt to oppose,
himd A truce was made, and a rich citizen of Edessa was
delivered, an unwilling hostage, to . Chosroes. In ' their retreat,
the Persians turned aside to take and demolish Callinicum., the
Coblenz of the Euphrates, which fell an easy prey to their assault,
as the walls were in process of renovation at the time. This
retirement of Chosroes, according to Procopius, procured for
Belisarius greater glory than he had won by his victories in
the West. But Belisarius was now recalled to conduct the
war in Italy.

The account of Procopius, which coming from a less able
historian would be rejected on account of internal improbability,
cannot be accepted with confidence. It displays such a marked
tendency to glorify Belisarius, that it can hardly be received as
a candid story of the actual transactions. Besides, there is a
certain inconsistency. If Chosroes retired. /or /eur of Belisarius,
as Procopius would have us believe, why was it he who received
the hostage, and how did he venture to take Callinicum ? As
there actually existed a sufficient cause, imcomiected with the
Romans, to induce liis return to Persia, namely the outbreak
of the Plague, we may suspect that this was its true motive.-

A Peman army always earned ^ (ojk e/f. p. 40" ),

with it materials for constructing who perhaps is generous to

pontoons (Proc. n.P. ii. 21), and they Procopius than he deserves. The
crosscxl by sxwh a bridge on this Plague broke out- in iVn'sia in the
occasion. summer of 542.

XVi,,

THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR

107

lY, The Roman Invasion of Persannenia (a.d. 543) ^

111 spite of the Plague Ckosroes set fortli in tlie following
.spring, to.' .invade Eoman Armenia. He ■ advanced into.. the;
district of Azerbiyan. (Atropatene), /'and halted at the great
shrine of Persian fire-worship,' where ' the ' Magi 'kept alive, an
eternal flame, which Procopius wished to identify with the fire
of Eoman Yesta. Here, the Persian monarch waited for some
time, having received a message that two Imperial ambassadors ^
were on their way to him. But the ambassadors did not . arrive,
because one of them fell ill by the road ; and Chosroes did not
pursue his northward journey, because the Plague broke out in
his army. His general Nabedes sent the bishop of Diibios to
Valerian, the general in Armenia, with compla,ints that the
expected embassy had not appeared. ■The..hishop was a.cco.m- ■
panied by his brother, who secretly communicated to Valerian
the valuable information that Chosroes was just then encom-
passed by perplexities, the spread of the Plague, and the revolt
of one of his sons. It wms a favourable opportunity for the
Eomaiis, and Justinian directed all the generals stationed in
the East to join forces to invade Persarmenia.

Martin wars now Master of Soldiers in the East. He does
not appear to have possessed much actual authority over the
other commanders. They at first encamped in the same district,
but did not unite their forces, which in all amoimted to about
thirty thousand men. Martin himself, with Ildiger and Theoc-
tistus, encamped at Kitharizon, a fort about four days’ march
from Theodosiopohs ; the troops of Peter and Adolius took up
their quarters in the vicinity ; while. Valerian stationed himself
close to Theodosiopolis and w^as.' joined there by Narses wdtli
a body of Heruls and Armenians. , The .Emperor’s cousin Justus
and some other commanders . remained during the campaign fat
to the south in the neighbourhood' of Martyropolis, wher€>‘. they
made incursions of no’ great impoitance.

At first the various generals' made. separate inroads, but they
ultimately uniteri then regimentsun the. spacious plain of Diibios,
eight days from Theodosiopohs. ..' This, plain, well suited for
equestrian exercise,, and richly- .populated, was a famous reiidez-

^ Proc. ib. 24, 25. .'Sergius "of Edcssa, both rhetors and

^ Oonstantianus, an Iil3Tia«L, and men of parts.

108 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

vous for traders of all nations, Indian, Iberian, Persian, and
Eoman.^ About thirteen miles from Dubios there was a steej^
mountain, on the side of which, was perched a village called
Anglon, protected by a strong fortress. Here the Persian general
Nabedes, with four thousand soldiers, had taken up an almost
impregnable position, blocking the precipitous streets of the
village with stones and wagons. The ranks of the Eoinan army,
as it marched to Anglon, fell into disorder ; the want of union
among the generals, who acknowledged no supreme leader,
led to confusion in the line of march ; mixed bodies of soldiers
and sutlers turned aside to plunder ; and the security which
they displayed might have warranted a spectator in prophesying
a speedy reverse. As they drew near to the fortress, an attempt
was made to marshal the somewhat demoralised troops in the
form of two wngs and a centre. The centre was commanded
by Martin, the right wing by Peter, the left by Valerian ; and all
advanced in irregular and wavering line, on accoxmt of the
roughness of the ground.^ The best course for the Persians
was obviously to act on the defensive. Narses and his Heruls,
who were probably on the left wing with Valerian, were the first
to attack the foes and to press them back into the fort. Drawn
on by the retreating enemy through the narrow village streets,
they were suddenly taken in the flanlc and in the rear by an
ambush of Persians who had concealed themselves in the houses.
The valiant Narses was wounded in the temple ; his brother suc-
ceeded in carrying him from the fray, but the wound proved
mortal. This repulse of the foremost spread the alarm to the
regiments that were coming up behind ; Nabedes comprehended
that the moment had arrived to take the offensive and let loose
his soldiers on the panic-stricken ranks of the assailants ; and
all the Heruls, who fought according to their wont without
helmets or breastplates,^ fell before the charge of the Persians.
The Eomans did not tarry ; they cast their arms away and fled
in wild confusion, and the mounted soldiers galloped so fast that
few horses survived the flight ; but the Persians, apprehensive
of an ambush, did not pursue.

Never, says Procopius, did the Eomans experience such a

^ Dubios corresponds to I)uin. some suspicions of the whole account

2 Procopius assigns as an additional of this campaign,
cause the want of discipline or previous ® The Herul’s only armour was a

marshalling of the troops ,* but I feel shield and a cloak of thick stuff.

XVI

THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR

109

great disaster. This exaggeration inclines us to be sceptical.
We can hardly avoid detecting in his narrative a desire to place
the generals in as bad a light as possible, just as in his description
of the hostilities of the preceding year we saw reason to suspect
him of unduly magnifying the behaviour of his hero Belisarius.
In fact his aim seems to be to draw a strong and striking contrast
between a brilliant campaign and a miserable failure. We have
seen reason to doubt the exceptional brilliancy of the achieve-
ment of Belisarius ; and we may wonder whether the defeat at
Anglon was really overwhelming.

Y. The Persian Invasion of Mesopotamia ; Siege of Edessa

(A.B. 544)1

His failure at Edessa in the first year of the war had rankled
in the mind of the Sassanid monarch. The confidence of the
inhabitants that they enjoyed a special divine protection in
virtue of the letter of Jesus to Abgar was a challenge to the
superstition of the Fire-worshippers, and the Magi and their
king could not bear the thought that they had been defeated
by the God of the Christians. Chosroes comforted himself by
threatening to enslave the Edessenes, and make the site of their
city a pasture for sheep. But the place was strong. Its walls
had been ruined again and again by earthquakes, against which
the divine promise did not secure it, and again and again rebuilt.
It had suffered this calamity recently (a.d. 525) and had been
restored by Justin, who honoured it by his own name. But
Justinopolis had as little power over the tongues of men as
Anastasiopolis or Theupolis. Edessa, the city of Abgar, re-
mained Edessa, as Daras remained Daras and Antioch Antioch.
Justinian had reconstructed the fortifications and made it
stronger than ever, and installed hydraulic arrangements to
prevent the inundations of the river Scyrtus which flowed
through the town.^

Realising the strength of the place, Chosroes would have been
glad to avoid the risk of a second failure, and he proposed to

^ Procopius, B.F. ii. 26-2S. wHich he built to the crest of a liill

“ Evagrius, H.E. iv. 8 ; Pro- overtopping the citadel. For the
copius, I)e aed. ii. 7 ; JLA. 18. The plan of the castle see Texier and
chief feature of the fortthcations Pullm, l^yzantivm Arckitecture, p.
of Justinian were the now walls 183.

110 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the inliabitants that they should pay him an immense sum or
allow him to take all the riches in the city. His pro was
refused, though if he had made a reasonable demand it would
have been agreed to ; and the Persian army encamped at some-
what less than a mile from the 'walls. Three experienced generals,
Martin, Peter, and Peranius, .were stationed in Edessa at this
time." .

On the eighth day from the beginning of the siege, Chosroes
caused a large number of hewn trees to be strewn on the ground
in the shape of an immense square, at about a stone’s throw
from the city ; earth was heaped over the trees, so as to form
a fiat mound, and stones, not cut smooth and regular as for
building, but rough hewn, were piled on the top, additional
strength being secured by a layer of wooden beams placed
between the stones and the earth. It required many days to
raise this mound to a height sufficient to overtop the walls.
At first the workmen were harassed by a sally of Huns, one of
whom, named Argek, slew twenty-seven with his own hand.
This could not be repeated, as henceforward a guard of Persians
stood by to protect the builders. As the work went on, the
mound seems to have been extended in breadth as well as in
height, and to have approached closer to the walls, so that the
workmen came within range of the archers who manned the
battlements, but they protected themselves by thick and long
strips of canvas, woven of goat hair, which were hung on poles,
and proved an adequate shield. Foiled in their attempts to
obstruct the progress of the threatening pile, which they saw
rising daily higher and higher, the besieged sent an embassy
to Chosroes. The spokesman of the ambassadors was the
physician Stephen, a nabive of Edessa, who had enjoyed the
friendship and favour of Kavad, whom he had healed of a
disease, and had superintended the education of Chosroes him-
self. But even he, infliieiitiai though he was, could not obtain
more than the choice of three alternatives--~ the siiiTeiider of
Peter and Peranius, who, originally- Persian 'subjects, had pre-
sumed to make war against their master’s son ; the payment of
50,000 lbs. of gold (two million and a quarter pounds sterling) ;
or the reception of Persian deputies, who vshould ransack the
city for treasures and bring all to the Persian camp. All these
proposals were too extravagant to be entertained for an instant ;

XVI

THE SECOND PERSIAN WAR

111 '

the ambassadors returned in dejectionj and the erection of the
mound advanced. ; A new embassy was sent, but was not- even
admitted to an, audience,;- and when the plan of raising the
city wall was tried, the' besiegers found no difficulty in elevating
their structure also. ,

. At length the Romans' resorted to the. plan of undermining
the mound, but when their excavation had reached the middle
of the pile the noise of the subterranean digging was heard
by the Persian builders, who immediately dug or hewed a hole
in their: own structure in order to discover the miners. These,
knowing that they were detected, .filled tip the remotest part of
the excavated passage and .adopted ■ a new . device. Beneath
the end of the mound nearest to the city they formed a small
subterranean chamber with stones, boards, and, earth. Into
this room' they threw piles of wood of the most inflammable
kind, which had been smeared over with snlphiir, bitumen, and
oil of cedar. As soon as the mound wns completed,^ they
kindled the logs, and kept the fire replenished with fresh fuel.
A considerable time was required for the fire to penetrate the
entire extent of the mound, and smoke began to issue pre-
maturely from that part where the foundations w- ere first in-
flamed. The besieged adopted an obvious device to mislead
the besiegers. They cast burning arrows and hurled vessels
filled with burning embers on various parts of the mound ; the
Persian soldiers ran to and fro to extinguish them, believing
that the smoke, which really came from beneath, was caused
by the flaming missiles ; and so,me thus employed w^ere pierced
by arrows from the walls. Next morning ■ Ciiosroes himself
visited the mound and was the first' to discover the true cause
of the smoke, which now issued in denser volume. ,The whole
army was summoned to the sepne 'amid the jeers of the Eoiiiaiis,
who surveyed from the walls the, consteriiatioii of their foes.
The torrents of wuter 'with which the stones wwe flooded in-
creased the vapour instead .of quenching it, and .caused the
sulphurous fla.n.ie,s to operate ' more, violently. Tii the evening
the volume of smoke was so -great that it could,, be see,n as far
away to the south as . at the city of ' 'Carrhae ; and the fire,

1 Jnst before its completion, Ma.rtiii Tile distance of Carriiae Ironi

made proposals for .peace, ' but the ■ JSdessa v/as about tliirtv miles,
Persiams were tmvii'iing. to, treat, :.

112 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE k:hap.

wliicli liad been gradually working upwards as well as spreading
beneath, at length gained the air and overtopped the surface.
Then the Persians desisted from their futile endeavours.

Six days later an attack was made on the walls at early
dawn, and but for a farmer who chanced to be awake and gave
the alarm, the garrison might have been surprised. The assailants
were repulsed ; and another assault on the great gate at mid-day
likewise failed.^ One final effort was made by the baffled enemy.
The ruins of the half-demolished mound were covered with a
floor of bricks, and from this elevation a grand attack was made.
At first the Persians seemed to be superior, but the enthusiasm
which prevailed in the city was ultimately crowned with victory.
The peasants, even the women and the children, ascended the
walls and took a part in the combat ; cauldrons of oil were kept
continually boiling, that the burning liquid might be poured
on the heads of the assailants; and the Persians, unable to
endure the fury of their enemies, fell back and confessed to
Chosroes that they were vanquished. The enraged despot drove
them back to the encounter ; they made yet one supreme effort,
and were yet once more discomfited. Edessa was saved, and
the siege unwillingly abandoned by the disappointed king, who,
however, had the satisfaction of receiving 500 lbs. of gold from
the weary though victorious Edessenes.

In the following year, A.n. 545, a truce ^ w^as concluded for
five years, Justinian consenting to pay 2000 lbs. of gold. But
Chosroes refused to assent to the Emperor’s demand that this
truce should apply to operations in Lazica, where he believed
that he held a strong position. Hence during the duration of
the truce, there was an “ imperfect ’’ war between the two powders
in Colchis. Justinian readily acceded to a request of the king
to permit a certain Greek physician, named Tribuniis,^ to remain
at the Persian court for a year. Tribunus of Palestine, the
best medical authority of the age, was, we are told, a man of
distinguished virtue and piety, and highly valued by Chosroes,

^ At this Juncture the Persians feiguing to be ill said that he ’ivouid
desired to treat, and informed the send envoys in three days,
garrison that a Roman ambassador ^ Procopius, B.P. ii. 28. The 2000
from Constantinople had arrived in ibs. were calculated at the rate of 400
their camp. They allowed the am- a year. ^ ^

bassador to enter Edessa, but Martin ® Op. Zacharias Myt. xii. 7, where
was suspicious of their intentions, and he is called Tribonian,

XVI

THE LAZIC WAR

113

wliose constitution was delicate and constantly required tlie
services of a physician. At the end of the year the king per-
mitted him to ask a boon, and instead of proposing remimera-
tioii for himself he begged for the freedom of some Koman
prisoners. Chosroes not only liberated those whom he named,
but others also to the number of three thousand.

§ 4. The Lazio War (a.d. 549-557) ^

The Lazi soon found that the despotism of the Persian fire-
worshipper was less tolerable than the oppression of the Christian
monopolists, and repented that they had taught the armies
of the great king to penetrate the defiles of Colchis. It was not
long before the Magi attempted to convert the new province
to a faith which was odious to the christianised natives, and it
became known that Chosroes entertained the intention of remov-
ing the inhabitants and colonising the land with Persians.
Gubazes, who learned that Chosroes was plotting against his
life, hastened to seek the pardon and the protection of Justinian.
In A.D. 549, 7000 Eomans were sent to Lazica, under the com-
mand of Dagisthaeus, to recover the fortress of Petra. Their
forces were strengthened by the addition of a thousand Tzanic
auxiliaries.

The acquisition of Colchis pleased Chosroes so highly, and
the province appeared to him of such eminent importance, that
he took every precaution to secure it.^ A highway was con--
structed from the Iberian confines through the country’s hilly
and woody passes, so that not only cavalry but elephants could
traverse it. The fortress of Petra was supplied with sufficient
stores of provisions, consisting of salted meat and corn, to last
for five years ; no wine was provided, but vinegar and a sort of
grain from which a spirituous liquor could be distilled. The
armour and weapons which were stored in the magazines would,
as was afterwards found, have accoutred five times the number
of the besiegers ; and a cunning device was adopted to supply

^ I have only summarised the mili- ix. Bks. 47 and 49.
tary operations in Lazica, recorded

by Procopius and Agathias. Full ® Ho tried to build a fleet in tlie
accounts will be found in the first Euxine, but the material was de-
edition of this work, and in Lebeau, stroyed by lightning.

VOL. TT ■ ■

114 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROM Am chap.

the city with water, while the enemy shoiild deliide themselves
with the idea that they had cut off the supply.

When Dagisthaeiis laid siege to^ the town the garrison con-
sisted' of 1500 Persians. He ’ committed the , mistake of' not
occupying the clisnrae or passes from Iberia into Colchis, so as
to prevent the arrival of Persian reinforcements. The siege was
protracted for a long time, and the small garrison suffered heavy
losses. At last Mermeroes, allow^ed to enter Colchis unopposed
with large forces of cavalry and infantry, " arrived at the pass
which commands the plain of Petra. Here his progress was
withstood by a hundred Romans, but after a long and bloody
battle the w’-eary guards gave way, and the Persians reached the
summit. When Dagisthaeiis learned this he raised the siege.

Mermeroes left 3000 men in Petra and provisioned it for a
short time. Leaving 6000 men under Phabrigus in Colchis, and
instructing them to keep Petra supplied with food, he withdrew
to Persarmenia. Disaster soon befell these troops ; they were
surprised in their camp by Dagisthaeus and Gubazes in the
early morning, and but few escaped. All the provisions brought
from Iberia for the use of Petra w-ere destroyed, and the eastern
passes of Colchis wmre garrisoned.^

Ill the spring of A.n. 650 Chorianes entered Colchis with a
Persian army, and encamped by the river Hippis, wiiere a battle
was fought in which Dagisthaeus was victorious, and Chorianes
lost his life. Dagisthaeus, however, w^as accused of misconduct-
ing the siege of Petra, through disloyalty or culpable negligence,
Justinian ordered his arrest, and appointed Bessas, who had
recently returned from Italy, in his stead, Men wnndered at this
appointment, and thought that the Emperor w^as foolish to
entrust the command to a general wdio w^as far advanced in
years, and whose career in the West had been inglorious ; but
the choice, as we shall see, was justified by the result.

The first labour that devolved on Bessa-s wms to suppress a
revolt of the Abasgians. The territory of this nation extended
along the limated eastern coast of the Euxine, and w^as separated
from Colchis by the country of the Apsilians, whio inhabited

^ At this point the two books of after the other l)ooks hod ^ivcn
Procopina known as Jm hello Persico to the world. Proeojiios apoluirises
come to an end, but the thread of the for the ndcessity which compels him
narrative is resumed in the Be beUo to sAtamlon his incthod of geMgmp'Ii kal
Qothicoj Bk. iv., which was written divisions {B,G, iv. 1).

XVI

THE LAZIC WAR

115

tlie district betweeR tLe western spurs of Caucasus and tbe sea.
Tbe Apsibaus bad long been Cbristians, and submitted to tbe
lordsbip of tbeir Lazic neighbours, wbo bad at one time bold
sway over tlie Abasgians. Abasgia was governed by two princes,
of wliom one ruled in the west and the other in the east. These
potentates increased their revenue by the sale of beautiful boys,
whom they tore in early childhood from the arms of their
reluctant parents and made eunuchs ; for in the Roman Empire
these comely and useful slaves were in constant demand, and
secured a high price from the opulent nobles. It was the glory
of Justinian to bring about the abolition of this unnatural
practice; the people supported the remonstrances which the
Emperor’s envoy, himself an Abasgian eunuch, made to their
kings ; the royal tyranny was abolished, and a people which had
worshipped trees embraced Christianity, to enjoy, as they
thought, a long period of freedom under the protection of the
Roman Augustus. But the mildest protectorate tends insensibly
to become domination. Roman soldiers entered the countrj^,
and taxes were imposed on the new friends of the Emperor.
The Abasgi preferred the despotism of men of their own blood
to servitude to a foreign master, and they elected two new kings,
Opsites in the east and Sceparnas in the west. But it would
have been rash to brave the jealous anger of Justinian vdthout
the support of some stronger power, and when Nabedes, after
the great defeat of the Persians on the Hippis, visited Lazica,
he received sixty noble hostages from the Abasgians, who craved
the protection of Chosroes. They had not taken warning from
the repentance of the Lazi, that it was a hazardous measure to
invoke the Persian. The king, Sceparnas, was soon afterwards
summoned to the Sassanid court, and his colleague Opsites
prepared to resist the Roman forces which Bessas despatched
against him imder the command of Wilgang (a Herul) and John
the Armenian.

In the southern borders of Abasgia, close to the Apsilian
frontier, an extreme mountain of the Caucasian chain descends
in the form of a staircase to the waters of the Euxiiie. Here,
on one of the lower spurs, the Abasgi had built a strong and
roomy fastness in which they hoped to defy the pursuit of an
invader. A rough and diflicult glen separated it from the sea,
while the ingress was so narrow that two persons could not enter

116 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

abreast, and 'so low that it was necessary to crawl. : The Romans,
who had sailed from tlie Phasis, or perhaps from Trapeziis,
landed on the Apsiliaii borders, and proceeded by land to this
glen, wdiere they found the whole Abasgian nation arrayed to
defend a pass w^hich it would have been easy to hold against
far larger iiuinbers. Wilgang remained with half the army at
the foot of the glen, wdiile John and the other half embarked in
the boats which had accompanied the coast march of the soldiers.
They landed at no great distance, and by a circiptous route were
able to approach the unsuspecting foe in the rear. The Abasgians
fled in consternation towards their fortress ; fugitives and pur-
suers, mingled together, strove to penetrate the narrow aper-
ture, and those inside could not prevent enemies from entering
^yith friends. But the Romans when they were wdthin the
walls found a new labour awaiting them. The Abasgi fortified
themselves in their houses, and vexed their adversaries by
showering missiles from above. At length the Romans employed
the aid of fne, and the dwellings w^ere soon reduced to ashes.
Some of the people were burnt, others, including the wives of
the kings, were taken alive, while Opsites escaped to the neigh-
bouring Sabirs.

The truce of five years had no\y elapsed (April, a.I). 650), and
while new' negotiations began between the courts of Constanti-
nople and Ctesiphon, Bessas addressed himself to the enterprise
in which Dagisthaeus had failed, the capture of Petra. The
garrison was brave and resolute, and the siege was long. But
the persistency of Bessas achieved success and the stronghold
fell in the early spring of a.d. 651. The gallant soldier, John the
Armenian, was slain in the final assault. When Mermeroes, who
was approaching to relieve Petra, heard the new’s, he retraced
his steps, in order to attack Archaeopolis and other fortresses
on the right bank of the Phasis.^ His siege of Archaeopolis

^ At this time the total number of expeditions to Africa and Italy
Roman soldiers in Lazica amounted to (see the follo^^in^ chapters) shows
12,000, Of these oOOO were stationed the importance of the oceiijuition of
at Archaeopolis, the remaining 9000, Lazica in the eyes of the Imperial
with an auxiliary force of 800 Tzani, government,
were entrenched in a camp near the

mouth of tlie Phasis. A year later ^ Dubois de I^Iontpereux {np. cif.
tiio forces amounted to 50,000 iii. 51) finds Archaeopolis at Xako-
(Agathias, iii. 8). A comparison of lakevi, on the Oliobos. ]\Iermeroes
these numbers with those of the made another attack on it in 552.

XVI

THE LAZIC WAR

117

was a failure. He suffered a considerable defeat and was
forced to retire. He succeeded in taking some minor fortresses
in the course of the following campaigns (a.d. 552-554).^ His
death, which occurred in the autumn of a.d. 654, was a serious
loss to Chosroes, for, though old and lame, and unable even to
ride, he was not only brave and experienced, but as unwearying
and energetic as a youth. Nachoragan was sent to succeed him.

Although the operations of the Persians in these years had
been attended with no conspicuous success, they had gained one
considerable advantage wdthout loss to themselves. The small
inland district of Suania, in the hills to the north of Lazica,
had hitherto been a dependency on that kingdom. Its princes
were nominated by the Lazic kings. The Suanians now (a.d.
552) repudiated this connexion and went over to the Persians,
who sent troops to occupy the territory.^

In the meantime the question of the renewal of the five years’
truce had been engaging the attention of the Eoman and Persian
courts, and the negotiations had continued for eighteen months.
At length it was renewed (a.d. 651, autumn) for another period
of five years, the Eornans agreeing to pay 2600 lbs. of gold,^
and, as before, it was not to affect the hostilities in Colchis. A
contemporary states that there was much popular indignation
that Chosroes should have extorted from the Empire 4600 lbs. of
gold in eleven and a half years, and the people of Constantinople
murmured at the excessive consideration which the Emperor

^ There has been some difEciilty omitted to distinguish the years,
about the chronoiogy of the last After this point he invariably marks
years of the Lazic war. The narrative the years (iii 15, spring 555; 28
of Procopius ends B.G. iv. 17. He and iv. 12, winter 555-55G ; iv. 13,
marks the winter 551-552 in e. 16, the spring and summer 556 ; 15, winter
spring of 552 in c. 17, and the failure 556-557). This chronology (so Clin-
of Mermeroes in that year. The ton, T.K, sub annis) is borne out by
story is continued by Agathias, ii. the notice of the earthquake in v. 3,
18, who refers briefly to the futile wiiich is dated by John Mai. xviii. p.
attacks of Mermeroes on Archaeo- 488.

polis, mentioned by Procopius, and We learn this from the negotia-

then describes the continuation of tions of a. B. 562 ; Menander, i )<2 fcf/.
hostilities, without mentioning that few. /r. 3, pp. 178, 180-187. In the
a winter had intervened. In ii. 22 reign of Leo, some Suaiiian forts Iiad
he notices the death of Mermeroes, been seized by the Persiajis, and the
and ii. 27 places that event in Suanians had sought help from the
28tli year of Justinian and 25th of Emperor, c. A.B. 408. Priscus, TJe
Chosroes (but the 24th of Cho&voeB hg. gent fr. 22,

corresponds to 28 Justin.) = a. ;d. 554- At 400 lbs. annually, the rate

555. This means that the events agreed on hi 445. The extra 600
related in ii. 19-22 occurred in 553 were for the year and a half sx>ent
and 554, and that the author has in negotiation. See Proc. il.GI iv. 15.

118 HISTOR Y OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

displayed towards tlie Persian arabassador Isdigmias ^ and Ms
retinue, wlio were permitted to move about in tlie city, without
a Eoman escort, as if it belonged to them. '

Meanwhile king Gubazes, who had been engaged in frequent
quarrels with the Eoman commanders, sent a complaint to
Justhiian accusing them of negligence in conducting the war.
Bessas, ' Martin, and Eusticus were specially named. The
Emperor deposed Bessas from his post, but assigned the chief
command to Martin' and did not recall Eusticus., This Eusticus
was the Emperor’s piirsebearer who had been sent to bestow
rewards on soldiers for special merit. He and Martin determined
to remove Gubazes. To secure themselves from blame, the)r
despatched John, brother of Eusticus, to Justinian with the
false message that Gubazes was secretly favouring the Persians.
Justinian was surprised, and determined to summon the king
to Constantinople. “ What,” asked John, ‘'Ms to be done, if
he refuses ? ” “Compel him,” said the Emperor; “he is our
subject.” “ But if he resist '? ” urged the conspirator. “ Then
treat him as a tymnL^' “ And W’^ill he who should slay him have
naught to fear?” “Naught, if he act disobediently and be
slain as an enemy.” Justinian signed a letter to this effect,
and armed with it John returned to Colchis. The conspirators
hastened to execute their treacherous design. Gubazes was
invited to assist in an attack on the fortress of Onoguris, and with
a few attendants he met the Eoman army on the banks of the
Chobus. An altercation arose between the king and Eusticus,
and on the pretext that the gainsayer of a Eoman general must
necessarily be a friend of the enemy, John drew Ms dagger and
plunged it in the royal breast. The wound was not mortal
but it unhorsed the king, and when he attempted to rise from
the ground, a blow from the squire of Eusticus killed Mm
outright.^

The Lazi silently buried their Mng according to their customs,
and turned away in mute reproach from their Eoman protectors.
They no longer took part in the military operations, but hid

^ IzedJi - Giisimasp leo'dey ovcrvatfi called *l6(7oe/cos (p. 405). He re-
in Menander). Odie soieiimities ob- tnrned to Persia in spring a.i>. 552
served in the reception and treatment and the treaty received the seal of
of this embassy were recorded by Ghosroes (Proc. i. 17).

Peter the Patrician, and are pre- ^ ^gathias, iii. 2-4. These events
served in Constantine Porph. Oer. i. belong to the autumn and winter
89 and 90. The ambassador is here 554-555,

XVI

119

THE LAZIQ WAR

themselves away as men who had lost their hereditary glory.
The other commanders, Buzes and Justin the son of Germanus,
concealed the indignation which they felt, supposing that the
outrage had the Emperor’s authority. Some months later,
when winter had begim, the Lazi met in secret comicil in some
remote Caucasian ravine, and debated whether they should
throw themselves on the. protection of Chosroes. But their
attachment to the Christian religion as well as their memory
of Persian oppression forbade them to take this step, and they
decided to appeal for justice and satisfaction to the Emperor,
and at the same time to supplicate him to nominate Tzath,
the younger brother of Gubazes, as their new king. Justinian
promptly complied with both demands. Athanasius, a senator
of high repute, was sent to investigate the circumstances of the
assassination, and on his arrival he incarcerated Eusticus and
John, pending a trial. In the spring (a.d. 555) Tzath arrived
in royal state, and when the Lazi beheld the Roman army
saluting him as he rode in royal apparel, a tmiic embroidered
with gold reaching to his feet, a white mantle with a gold stripe,
red shoes, a turban adorned with gold and gems, and a crown,
they forgot their sorrow and escorted him in a gay and brilliant
procession. It was not till the ensuing autumn^ that the
authors of the death of the late king were brought to justice,
and the natives witnessed the solemn procedure of a Roman
trial. Eusticus and John were executed. Martin’s complicity
was not so clear, and the Emperor, to whom his case was referred,
deposed him from his command in favour of his own cousin
Justin, the son of Germanus.^ Martin perhaps would not have
been acquitted if he had not been popular with the army and
a highly competent general.

Immediately after the assassination of Gubazes, the Romans
who had assembled in full force before the fortress of Onoguris
sustained a severe and inglorious defeat at the hands of 3000
Persians (a.b. 554). In the foUowing spring, Phasis (Poti), at
the mouth of the like-named river, was attacked by Nachoragan,
and an irregular battle before this town resulted in a victory
for Martin which -wiped out the disgrace of Onoguris.® In the

^ Cp. Agathias, iv. 12 ad iniL . s consequence of this failure,

^ Justin was created crrpar^^vos was flayed alive by the

avTOKpdrcop, Agathias, iv. 21. order of Chosroes.

120 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

same year, the Misimians, a people who lived to the north-east
of the Apsilians and like these and the Suanians were dependent
on Lazica, slew a Roman envoy who was travelling through their
country and had treated them with insolence. Knowing that
this outrage would be avenged they went over to Persia. This
incident determined the nature of the unimportant operations
of A.D. 556. A Persian army prevented the Romans from
invading the land of the Misimians. But a punitive expedition
was sent in the ensuing winter and was attended with an inhuman
massacre of the Misimians, who finally yielded and- were pardoned.
This expedition was the last episode of the Lazic War.

The truce of five years expired m the autumn of a.I). 656.
Both powders were weary of the war, and the course of the
campaigns had not been encouraging to Chosroes. It is probable,
too, that he was preparing foru. final effort to destroy, in con-
junction with the Turks, the kingdom of the Ephthalites. Early
in the year he had sent his ambassador Isdigiinas to Con-
stantinople^ to negotiate a renewal of the truce which would
soon expire. It was intended that the arrangement shoiild be
a preliminary to a treaty of permanent peace, and this time it
was not to be imperfect, it was to extend to Lazica as well as
to Armenia and the East. The truce was concluded (a.d. 557)
on the terms of the siai/as quo in Lazica, each power retaining
the forts which were in its possession ; there was no limit of
time and there w^ere no money payments.^

The historical importance of the Lazic War lay in the fact
that if the Romans had not succeeded in holding the country
and thwarting the design of Chosroes, the great Asiatic power
would have had access to the Euxine and the Empire wmuld have
had a rival on the waters of that sea. The serious menace
involved in this possibility was fully realised by the Imperial
government and explains the comparative magnitude of the
forces which were sent to the defence of the Lazic Idngdom.

§ 5. Conclusion of Peace (a.d. 662)

It is not clear why five years -were allowed to lapse before
this truce of a.d. 557 was converted into a more permanent

^ Malalas, xviii. p. 4S8, notes the presence of the Persian ambassador in JUay.

- Agathias, iy. 30.

XVI

THE PEACE OF AM, jdi*

121

agreement. Perhaps Chosroes could not bring liimself to
abandon bis positions in Lazica, and be knew that tbe complete
evacuation of that country would be insisted on as an indispens-
able condition by tbe Emperor, At length, in a.b. 562, Peter
the Master of Offices, as the delegate of Justinian, and Isdiguiias,
as the delegate of Obosroes, met on the frontiers to arrange
conditions of peace J The Persian monarch desired that the
term of its duration should be long, and that, in return for the
surrender of Lazica, the Romans should pay at once a sum of
money equivalent to the total amount of large annual payments
for thirty or forty years ; the Romans, on the other hand, wished
to fix a shorter term. The result of the negotiations was a
compromise. A treaty was made for fifty years, the Roman
goyernment undertaking to pay the Persians at the rate of
30,000 gold pieces (£18,750) annually. The total amount due
during the first seven years was to be paid at once, and at the
beginning of the eighth year the Persian claim for the three
ensiling years was to be satisfied. From the tenth year forward
the payments were to be annual. The inscription of the Persian
document, which ratified the compact, was as follows :

The divine, good, pacific, ancient Chosroes, king of kings, fortunate,
pious, beneficent, to whom the gods have given great fortune and great
empire, the giant of giants, who is formed in the image of the gods, to
Justinian Caesar our brother.’’

The most important provision of the treaty was that Persia
agreed to resign Lazica to the Romans. The other articles were
as follows : "

(1) The Persians were bound to prevent Huns, Alans, and
other barbarians from traversing the central passes of the
Caucasus with a view to depredation in Roman territory ; while
the Romans were boimd not to send an army to those regions
or to any other parts of the Persian territory. (2) The Saracen
allies of both States were included in this peace. (3) Roman and
Persian merchants, whatever their wares, were to carry on their
traffic at certain prescribed places,^ where custom-houses were
stationed, and at no others. (4) Ambassadors between the two

^ Our source for these transactions hock, By zanz und Persien, 57 sqq,
is Menander Protector, />. 3, De ® Doubtless Nisibis, Dubios, and

Bom. The provisions have been CaUinicum. Cp. Giiterbock, op, ciL
commented on at length by Outer- 78.

122 HISTOR Y OF THE LA TER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

States were to liave the priyilege of making use of the public
■posts, and their baggage was not- to.be liable to custom duties.
(5) Provision was made that Saracen or other traders should
not simiggle goods into either Empire by out-of-the-way roads ;
Daras and Nisibis were named as the two great emporia where
these barbarians were to sell their wares.^ (6) Henceforward
the migration of individuals from the territory of one State
into that of the other was not to be permitted ; but any who
had deserted during the war were allowed to return if they wished.
(7) Disputes between Eoinans and Persians were to be settled —
if the accused failed to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff — ^by a
committee of men who were to meet on the frontiers in the
presence of both a Roman and a Persian governor. (8) To
prevent dissension, both States bound themselves to refrain
from fortifying towns in proximity to the frontier. (9) Neither
State was to harry or attack any of the subject tribes or nations
of its neighbour. (10) The Romans engaged not to place a
large garrison in Daras, and also that the magister militum of
the East ^ should not be stationed there ; if any injury in the
neighbourhood of that city were inflicted on Persian soil, the
governor of Daras was to pay the costs. (11) In the case of
any treacherous dealing, as distinct from open violence, which
threatened to disturb the peace, the judges on the frontier w^ere
to investigate the matter, and if their decision was insufficient,
it was to be referred to the Master of Soldiers in the East ; the
final appeal was to be made to the sovran of the injured person.
(12) Curses were imprecated on the party that should violate
the peace,

A separate agreement provided for the toleration of the
Christians and their rites of burial in the Persian kingdoin.
They were to enjoy immunity from persecution by the Magi,
and, on the other liancl, they were to refrain from proselytising.

When the sovrans had learned and signified their approbation
of the terms on which their representatives had agreed, the two
ambassadors drafted the treaty each in his own language. The

^ The word for smuggling is /cXeTrro- erroneous ; in the iirst place the

reXieveh'. words are rendered dnx or lent is, in

2 In botli these cases the same ex- the second place praefeciinn. ormitis,
pression is used, roj' ew (TTpaTrjydv, which would naturally moan the

and must refer to the same oflheer. Praetorian Prefect of the East. The

The Latin translation in Muller’s reference of legal disputes to the
edition is misleading, if not positively Master of Soldiers is noteworthy.

XVI

THE PEACE OF A.D, 562

123

Greek draft was tken translated into Persian, and the Persian
into Greek, and the two versions were carefully collated, A
copy was then made of each. The original versions were sealed
by the ambassadors and their interpreters, and Peter took
possession of the Persian, and Isdigunas of the Greek, while
of the unsealed copies Peter took the Greek and Isdigunas the
Persian. It is rarely that we get a glimpse like this into the
formal diplomatic procedure of ancient times.

One question remained undecided. The Romans demanded
that with the resignation of their pretensions to Lazica the
Persians should also evacuate the small adjacent region of Suania.
No agreement was reached by the plenipotentiaries, but the
question was not allowed to interfere with the conclusion of the
treaty, and was reserved for further negotiation. For this
purpose Peter went in the following year (a.d. 563) to the court
of Chosroes, but Chosroes refused to agree to his argument that
Suania was a part of Lazica. In the course of the conversations,
the king made the remarkable proposal that the matter should
be left to the Suanians themselves to decide. Peter would not
entertain this, as Chosroes probably anticipated, and the negotia-
tions fell through.

CHAPTIE XVII

THE RECOHQXJEST OF AFRICA

§ 1. The Conquest (a.b. 533-534)

It was the claim of the Roman Empire, from its foundation, to
be potentially conterminous with the inhabited world and to
embrace under its benignant sway the human race. Roman
poets often spoke of it simply as the world {orhis). This pre-
tentious idea, which was inherited by the Church, might well
have been extinguished by the losses which Rome had sustained.
Her territory had not been extended since the days of Trajan,
and since the beginning of the fourth century her borders had
been gradually retreating. All the w^'estern provinces were
barbarian kingdoms ; Italy itself, wdth Rome, was no more
than a nominal dependency. The idea of restoring the Empire
to its ancient limits seems to have floated before the mind of
Justinian, but it is difficult to say whether he conceived it from
the first as a definite aim of policy. He seized so promptly the
opportunities which chance presented to him of recovering lost
provinces in the lands of the Mediterranean, that "we may suspect
that he would have created pretexts, if they had not occurred.

His ambition found its first theatre in Africa. A revolution
at Carthage in a.b. 531 gave the desired opportunity for inter-
vention. The perpetual peace which Gaiseric had concluded
with the Roman government (a.b. 476) had, under his successors,
been faithfully observed on both sides. There appear to have
been no hostilities except during the war between Odovacar and
Theoderic, when Idng Gunthamund took advantage of the situa-
tion to make descents on Sicily and inflicted a defeat upon the
Goths.^ The Catholic Christians endured more or less cruel

^ Cassiodorus, Ghron.^ sub 491 ; Dracontius, Satisfaction vv. 213-214.

124

CHAP. XVII

THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA

125

persecutions at the hands of Huneric, Gunthamund, and Trasa-
mundd and the Emperors oceasionally protested.^ These kings
pursued the policy of Gaiseric and looked with suspicion and
jealousy on any relations between their African subjects and
Constantinople . The poet Dracontius was thrown into prison
by Giinthamund for celebrating the praises of a foreign potentate^
and wrote a recantation and apology for his fault. The potentate
was undoubtedly Zeno.® But there was no breach and the
relations between Trasanaund and Anastasius were rather
friendly.^ Then Hilderic, the son of Huneric, came to the throne
(xi.i), 523).^ The fact that he was the grandson of Valentinian III,
was calculated to promote closer intimacy with Constantinople,^
and under his mild rule persecution ceased. He was the guest-
friend of Justinian, and that astute prmce probably aimed at
making the Vandal state a dependency of the Empire, through
his influence on the unwarlike kingJ Hilderic’s complaisance

^ Tiie contemporary bishop of Vita are more interesting. In the reigns
wrote the story of these persecutions of Trasammid, who seems to have
in his Hist 'pers. Afr. prov, encouraged letters, and his successors

^ Huneric allowed the Church of there w^as a good deal of literary
Carthage to ordain a bishop at the activity in Africa. We have a verse
request of Zeno and his sister-in-law panegyric on Trasamund by Floren-
Placidia. Victor, ii. 2, cp. i. 51. tinus {Anthol, Lat. No. 376), poems

® Dracontius, 93 : of Felix on the public Thermae

culpa mihi fuerat dominos reticere modestos wdiieh the same king built at Alianae,
igiiotumciue milii scribcre yel dominiiffl, near Carthage, where the kings had
Dracontius -was the most considerable a palace {ib, 210-214). We have
of the obscure Latin poets between also the Booh of Epigrams of Luxorius
Sidoniiis and Corippus. His most p‘6. 287-375), of ■which the most
ambitious work 'was the De laudibus interesting is that on the death of
Del, but his pagan poems, the Damira, the infant daughter of
Orestes, and the ten short pieces Oageis, a kinsman of king Hilderic.
eoliected under the title of Romiilea ^ Procopius, i?. F. i. 8. 14.

® Gaiseric (d. 477)

Eudocia = HTJXEEic (d. 484)
(d. of

Valentinian

ni) r

Theoderic

Hilderic Giinthamund ■ Trasamund = Amalafrida
(deposed 530) (d. 496) (d. 523) (sister of

Theoderic, the

Tlic i>oet Florentinus {Anth. Lat
215) hailed him as

Vandalirice potcns, gemini dmdematis heres,
and reminded him of the victories

Ostrogoth) Gelimer

(deposed 534).
of his Roman ancestors, Theodosius
■■and' Valentinian III..:

ampla Yaleutmiaiu virtiis cognita iiumdo
hostibiis addictls osfcenditur arce nepotis.

^ Procopius, J5.F. i 9. 8, cp. 19-23.

126 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

to Constantinople aroused dissatisfaction ; the opposition was
headed by his cousin Gelimer, who usurped the throne in a.d. 530
and threw Hilderic into prison. Justinian at once intervened.
He addressed to the usurper a letter of remonstrance, , appealing
to the testament of Gaiseric and demanding the restoration of
the rightful king. Gelimer replied by placing Hilderic under a
stricter guard. The Emperor then despatched an ultimatum
requiring Gelimer to send the deposed sovran to Constantinople,
otherwise he would regard the treaty with Gaiseric as terminated.
Gelimer replied defiantly that the matter concerned the Vandals
themselves, and that it was not Justinian’s business. He probably
saw through Justinian’s designs and knew that if he yielded he
might postpone but would not avert war.^

The Emperor decided that the time had come to attempt
the conquest of Africa, and as soon as peace had been concluded
with Persia in spring of a.d. 532, the preparations were hurried
forward. In his eyes it was no wur of aggression ; it was the
suppression of tyrants in provinces over wliich the Emperors
had always tacitly reserved their rights {iura impcm). The
ecclesiastics were ardently in favour of an enterprise which
would rescue their fellow-Catholics in Africa from the oppression
of Arian despots. ^ But from his counsellors and ministers
Justinian received no encouragement. The disaster of the great
expedition of the Emperor Leo was not forgotten. Their minds
were still possessed by the formidable prestige which the Vandal
power had attained under Gaiseric both by land and sea. The
Empire had not kept up a powerful navy, and without command
of the sea the hazard of attempting to transport an army and
land it on a hostile coast could not be denied. The Praetorian
Prefect, John of Cappadocia, explained to the Emperor the
difficulties and risks of the undertaking in the plainest words,

^ Cp. Diehl, HAfrique hyzantinei application of Hilderic to Justinian
p. 6. The true form of Geiimer’s in the same ye<%i' (xviii. 459). 531

name is Geilamir (so his coins and is the date usually assigned by
GJ.L. vih. 17. 412). The date of his modern writers (Clinton, Diehl, etc.) ;
usurpation 530 follows from length but Schmidt is right in deciding for
of Hilderic’s reign given as 7 years by 630 {Gesch, der WaruL p. 124).
Procopius, 7 years 3 months by Victor

Tonn., and in the shorter edition ^ weicomed b^"

of the Vandal LaUrculus Begum as 7 the eastern traders residing afc Garth-
years 14 days. If we take the last age, who saw in the reunion of Afriv^a
ligure u-e get May 19, 530, as the day of feh the Empire advantage to tiieir
Hiideric’s defeat. \nctorTonn. places commercial interests. Procopius, Ji. F.
it in 531, and John Mai. places the i. 20, 5,

xvw^

THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA

127

and earnestly endeavoured to dissuade Min from an adventure
wliicli tlie opinion of experts unreservedly condemned. And
tMs view was justified, altliougli its advocates probably bad not
realised bow far tbe military strength of tbe Vandals bad decayed
since tbe days of Gaiseric, But notwitbstanding tbis decline,
the events of tbe campaign show that if Gelimer had not com-
mitted the most amazing mistakes, which his enemies could not
have foreseen, the Eonian army wmuld probably have suffered
an inglorious defeat. Justinian turned deaf ears to tbe gloomy
anticipations of bis counsellors, be believed in tbe justice of bis
cause, be believed that Heaven was on his side,^ and be had
confidence in the talents of his general Belisarius, whom he
destined to the command of the expedition and invested with
tbe fullest powers, gi\dng him a new title equivalent to imjjeraioT,
which bad long been restricted to tbe Emperors themselves.^

Tbe small numbers of the army, deemed sufficient for tbe
conquest of a people who bad the military reputation of the
Vandals, is surprising. It consisted of not more than 16,000
men. Perhaps tbis was as much as it was considered possible
to transport with safety; and if it were annihilated, the loss
would not be irreparable. There were 10,000 infantry, which were
drawn partly from the Gomitatenses and partly from tbe Federates.
There were 5000 excellent cavalry, of whom more than 3000
were similarly composed, and the remainder were private re-
tainers of Belisarius.^ There were two additional bodies of
allied troops, both mounted archers, 600 Hmis and 400 Heruls.
The whole force was transported on 600 vessels, guarded by
ninety-two dromons or ships of war.

The hundred years of their rule in Africa had changed the
spirit and manners of the Vandals. They had become less

^ For the religious motives cp. a^iroKpdrwp, It is to be remembered
Procopius, ib. 10. 19-20 ; Diehl, op. that avroKpdreop is the official eqoiva-
7-8. lent of IVe shall hereafter

- Procopius (ih. 11. 20) does not' meet other commanders hearing the
actually say that he was designated same title and authority (Germanus,
as (TTpar'ijybs aiVo/cpdroj/), but that Narses, Justin),
all his acts W'ere to be valid ate

auTov i^a(jL\4cjC!^ avtd SiaTreTrpa'ypevotf. ® Procopius, ib. 11. 2 The

But as he had ceased to be mag. mil, huGelloJvn {dopvtpbpoL Kal vira^TTnaTai)
per Orientem, and nothing is said of Belisarius w^ere proba])]y at least
of his appointment to another of the: 1400 or 1500 (ep. Diehl, ib. 17 note),
regular military commandwS, we may It seems clear from the whole context
infer that it was on this occasion in Procopius that tlie Heruls and
that Justinian introduced the new Huns were not inchided in the 5000
and exceptional post of <rr/>aT . cavalry (though Diehl hesitates).

128 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

warlike ; they had adopted the material civilisation and luxuries
of the conquered provincials ; and their military efficiency had
declined since Gaiseric’s death. It may be doubted whether
their army numbered more than 30,000 meii.^ It consisted
entirely of cavalry, arrayed in inferior armour, who fought with
lance and sword, and were, like other German peoples, unskilled
in archery and the use of the javelin. Their king, although he
was more martial than his predecessor, was a man of senti-
mental temperament, who had no military or political talents.
The situation required a leader of exceptional ability. For the
kingdom was divided against itself. Gelimer’s Eoinan subjects
longed for restoration to the Empire and would do all they could
to assist the invaders. Even among the Vandals there were
the adherents of Hilderic. The Moorish tribes of the interior
could not be trusted to remain friendly or neutral if fortune
seemed to incline to the Eoman cause.

Before the Imperial army set sail from the Bosphorus, two
events happened, and Gelimer committed two astounding
blunders. The inhabitants of Tripolitana^ revolted from the
Vandals, and Gelimer made no attempt to recover it. This
was a fatal policy, for it wmuld enable the Eoman army, if it
reached the coast of Africa in safety, to land on a friendly soil.
Shortly before this the Vandal governor of Sardinia^ had pro-
claimed himself independent of Carthage, and when he heard
of Justinian’s project he offered his submission to the Emperor.
Gelimer despatched a force of 5000 men and 120 ships to
recover the island. He thus deprived himself of a considerable
fraction of his army and virtually of Ms whole effective naval
strength.^ The Vandal fleet wMch was re|)uted so formidable
played no part in the war. This curious perversity of Gelimer,
in wasting his strength on the recovery of a distant island whose
disaffection could hardly have affected the course of events,^ and

y Diehl, 0 %), cit. p. 9, says less than ^ He was a Goth, named Godas.
40,000; cp. Pfliigk Harttimg, Hist, ^ Procopius describes the ships as
Zeitschriflf Ixi p. 70 (1889). Kote “ the best sailers ” {ib. 11. 24). If
that the figure of 80,000 warriors they were only part of the fleet,
given in Pi’oeopius, M,A. 18. 6 is the rest was not strong enough tt>
meiyly a repetition of his mistake in attempt any action. No inference
B. F. i. 5. IS (see above, Vol. I. p. 246), can be dravii from irapTl no arbXcp

2 Led by a certain Pudentius, wdio {ib, 25, 17 and 21), which means the
was in correspondence with Justinian whole Sardinian squadron,
and was assisted by a small body ® Gelimer, no doubt, believed that
of troops sent from Constantinople, the Sardinian expedition would return
Procopius, ib, 10. 5. before the enemy landed in Africa,

XVII

129

THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA

neglecting to suppress the movement in Tripolitana, whose pos-
session was of the first importance, was perhaps decisive for the
whole issue of the war.

If the Sardinian revolt was a piece of luck for Justinian, the
attitude of Italy was hardly less fortunate. After the death of
Trasamund, his Ostrogothic wife Amalafrida had been iinprisoned
and afterwards murdered,^ and this led to an irreconcilable breach
between the courts of Carthage and Ravenna. The Ostrogothic
government •willingly supported the Imperial expedition by
placing the harbours of Sicily at its disposal

The Roman forces set sail from Constantinople in June a.d.
533. Before their departure the ship of the general moored
in front of the Imperial palace, and the Patriarch offered prayers
for the success of the expedition. Among those who witnessed
their sailing perhaps most who were competent to judge believed
that they wmuld never return. Belisarius was accompanied by
his wife Antonina, and by the historian Procopius, who again
acted as his legal assessor, and to whom we owe the story of the
war. The domesticus, or chief of the generaTs staff, was the
eunuch Solomon, a native of Mesopotamia, one of those able
eunuchs whom we frequently meet on the stage of Byzantine
history.

The voyage from the Bosphorus to Sicily was marked by
many halts, ^ and the shore of Africa was not reached till the
beginning of September. Procopius commemorates the practical
foresight of Antonina in storing a large number of jars of water,
covered with sand, in the hold of the generals ship, and tells
how this provision stood them in good stead in the long run
from Zacynthus to Catane. Belisarius had been full of mis-
givings about the voyage from Sicily to Africa, expecting that
the enemy would attack him by sea. He now learned for the

^ Sec next chapter, § 1, p. 158. on whom it devolved to provide the

soldiers with the bread necessary
“ Xino days were spent at Heraclea for the voyage. It was foand that
and Abydns, so that, as the expedition the bread had gone bad, beoause it
sailed “about the summer solstice” had been baked only once, instead
(June 21), it left the Dardanelles of twice. Five hundred soldiers fell
about July 1. There was a long victims to dysentery caused by the
delayatMethone (Modon,mMessenia), putrefying dough. The Prefect had
where the army suffered (just as ■ saved both fuerand flour, Belisarius
modern armies so often suffer from was praised for complahiing to the
the dishonesty of contractors) from Emperor, but no punishment was
the greed of the Praetorian Prefect, inflicted on the guilty.

130 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

first time {from a man who had just arrived from Carthage) that
the Vandal fleet had been sent to Sardinia ; and equally welcome
was the news that Gelimer was unaware that the Roman ex-
pedition was on its way and had made no preparation to meet
it, at Carthage or elsewhere.

The fleet made land at Caputvada (Ras Kapudia) on the
African coast, and the army disembarked and fortified a camp.
Before landing Belisaiius had held a council of war, and some of
his generals argued that it would be the better plan to sail
straight for Carthage and surprise it, but Belisarius overruled
this view ; there was the chance of a hostile fleet appearing, and
he knew that the soldiers were afraid of a naval attack.
Caputvada is sixty-six Roman miles south of Hadrumetum
(Soiisse) and one hundred and sixty - two from Carthage,^
so that if his army marched slightly over eleven miles a day,
he was fourteen days’ journey from his goal. The road
ran close to the coast, and the fleet was instructed to sail
slowly and keep within hail of the army. A squadron of
300 horse, under John the Armenian, was sent ahead as an
advance guard at a distance of three miles, and the corps of
600 Huns was ordered to march at the same distance to the
left of the road, to protect the army from a flank attack. The
first town on their route was Syllectum (Selekta), which was
seized quietly by a ruse. The overseer of the public post deserted
and delivered all the horses to Belisarius, wdio rewarded him.
with gold and gave him a copy of a letter addressed by the
Emperor to the leading men^ of the Vandals, to make public.
It ran thus :

It is not our purpose to go to war with the Vandals, nor
are we breaking our treaty with Gaiseric. We are only attempt-
ing to overthrow your tyrant, who making light of Gaiseric’s
testament keeps your king a prisoner, and killed those of his
Idnsmen whom he hated, and having blinded the rest keeps them
in prison, not allowing them to end their sufferings by death.
Therefore join us in freeing yourselves from a tyranny so -wicked,
that you may enjoy peace and liberty. We give you pledges in
tli.e name of God that we will give you these blessings.”

As the man did not venture to publish the letter openly but

^ Procopius reckons the distance as five days’ journey for an unen-
cumbered man, B.V, i 14. 17. . ^ '’Apxovres.

XVII

THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA

131

only showed it secretly to Ms friends, it produced no effect.
During their marcli northward the friendliness of the inhabitants
supplied the invaders with provisions, and Belisarius took the
strictest measures to prevent his soldiers from alienating the
sympathies of the population by marauding and looting. It
will be remembered how in England’s war with her American
colonies the shameless pillaging of the property of the colonial
loyalists, by the Hessian mercenaries whom George III. had
hired, drove them into the ranks of the rebels, and the English
generals were incapable of keeping a firm hand on their
auxiliaries. Belisarius had a more difficult task. Want of
discipline, as we shall see, was the weak point in his mixed
army. But for the present he succeeded in restraining the
appetites of his barbarian troops, and advanced comfortably
towards the Vandal capital.

Passing Thapsus, Leptis, and Hadrumetum, the army reached
Grasse, where the Vandal kings had a villa and a beautiful park,
full of fruit trees, and as the fruit was ripe the soldiers ate their
fin. This place, now Sidi-Khalifa, is still famous for its fruit
gardens.^ During the night of the halt at Grasse some of the
Eoman scouts met enemy scouts and after exchanging blows
both parties retired to their camps. Thus Belisarius learned
for the first time that the enemy was not far away. It was, in
fact, the king who was following them but keeping out of sight.
Gelimer was at Hermiane ^ when he learned of the Eoman
disembarkation. He sent orders immediately to his brother
Ammatas at Carthage to kill Hilderic and the other prisoners,
and, collecting all the troops in the city, to be ready to attack
the Eoman army at a given time and place. He marched south-
ward himself at the head of Ms army to follow and observe the
advance of the invaders without being seen Mmself. His plan
was to surprise and surround the enemy at a spot near Tunis
and ten miles from Carthage.

Not far from Grasse the high road to Carthage left the coast
and crossed the promontory which runs out into Cape Bon.
Here the army and the sMps parted company, and the naval
commander was instructed not to put in at Carthage but to

^ See Tissot, Oeographie, ii. p. 116. It is close to Fradiz, tbe ancient
Apbrodismm.

2 In Byzacena.

132 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

remain about three miles out at sea until lie should be summoned.
The road rejoined the coast at Ad Aquas, which is now Hammam
eUnf , twenty-three miles from Carthage. By the fourth day ^
(September 13) the army was approaching Tunis, and it was
perhaps at the northern extremity of the defile of Hammam
el-Enf, on a rocky spur of the Jebel Bu-Kornin— the two-
horned hill— that Belisarius, neglecting no precautions and
hesitating to risk an engagement with his whole army, made a
stockaded camp in which he ordered his infantry to remain
while he rode down into the plain with the cavalry.^ John the
Armenian had ridden on in advance, as usual, while the Huns
were some miles to the left, west of the Bu-Kornin hills.
Belisarius had no idea of the excellent strategic plan which the
enemy had devised to destroy him.

If we walk out of the modern town of Tunis by the south-
eastern gate, Bab Alleona, we soon reach the railway station of
JebelJeUud, and near it was the Roman station Ad Decimum,
at the tenth milestone from Carthage. On the left are a number
of little eminences of which the highest is named Megrin, on
the right the hill of Sidi Fathalla, behind which extends to the
w^est the Sebkha es-Sejumi or Salt-plain, an arid treeless tract
then as now.^ This was the place in which Gelimer had planned
to surround the Romans. ' Ammatas coming from Carthage w^as
to confront them in the defile ; when they were engaged with
him, Gibamund, the king’s nephew,^ wdth 2000 men, advancing
across the Salt-plain, -was to descend from the hill on their left,

^ From Grasse. TBe distance to
Ad Aqnas is about 50 miles. Tlie
date was the eve of St. Cyprian’s
day, Sept. 13 i, 21. 23). If

the army landed at Gapiitvada on
Sept. 2, they reached Sjdlectiim (a
long day’s march of 19 miles) on
Sept. 3, Hadrumetiim Sept. 6,
Grasse Sept. 9, Ad Aquas Sept. 12.
This would mean much longer
marches between Grasse and Ad
Aquas than the 80 stadcs (11|- miles)
which Procopius says was the average
day’s march.

^ The position of the camp, at
Darbet es-Sif, is Tissot’s plausible
conjecture, op. c?f. p, 121. Procopius
notes that the place was 7 miles from
Decimum (z6. 19, 1).

® lUdiou ’AXwp, B.V. i. 18. 12. This

indication and the reference to the
hills on either side of the road, ib, 19.
19, are the important determinants
in the identification of Ad Decimum,
which is due to Tissot. The fact
that the place was a mutatio ten
Eoman miles from Carthage is not
enough as we do not know how far the
city of Carriiage extended southvaird
and from what point the distance was
measured. Tissot {ib. 114 sqq.) has
thro’vvm much light on the topography
of the battle.

^ Gibamund is mentioned as the
builder of Thermae in a metrical
inscription found at Tunis {C. LL. viii.
25362);

Gaude operi, Gebamimde, tuo, reqalis origo,

deliciis sospes iitere onm poptilo.

XVII THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA 133

while Gelimer himself with the main army was to come upon
them in the rear. The time at which the Eomans might be
expected to reach Ad Decimum was nicely calculated, and the
plan all but succeeded.

Ammatas committed the error of appearing with a few men
at Ad Decimum some hours before the appointed time, probably
for the purpose of surveying the ground. He arrived at noon
and came face to face with the troops of John. He was a brave

Emery 'Wvilfccr Ltd, sc.

warrior and he killed with his own hand twelve of John's best
men before he fell himself. His followers fled and sw'ept back
in a hot-foot race to the shelter of Carthage the other troops who
were marching negligently in bands of twenty or tliirty to the
appointed place. John and his riders pursued and slew as far
as the city gates.

While this action was in progress, the Huns had reached the
Plain of Salt and fell in wuth the forces of Gibamund who w^ere
moving eastward to Sidi Fathalla, and, although in numbers
they wwe less than one to three, utterly annihilated them.

134 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

The Huns enjoyed the thought, were

a feast which God had prepared for them.^

Of these two events Belisarius knew nothing as he descended
from Hammam ehEnf into the plain of Mornag. His Federate
cavalry rode in advance, the regular cavalry and his own retainers
at some distance in the rear. Crossing the stream Oued Miliane,
the road to Tunis passes Maxula (Eades), which lies between
the sea and the southern shore of the lake of Tunis.^ The
Federates, when they reached Ad Decimum, saw the corpses of
their comrades and those of Animatas and some Vandals. The
people of the place told them what had happened and they
climbed the hills to reconnoitre. Presently they discerned a
cloud of dust to the south and then a large force of Vandal
cavalry. They sent, at once, a message to Belisarius urging
him to hasten. It was Gelimer’s army that was coming. Having
followed Belisarius at a safe distance along the main road he had
doubtless left it at Grombalia, and keeping to the west of the
Jebel Bu-Kornin proceeded along a road which is still used by
the natives for travelling between Grombalia and Tunis. The
hilly nature of the ground did not permit him to see either the
movements of Belisarius on his right or the disaster of his
nephew on his left. Wlien his vanguard reached Ad Decimum
there was a contest with the Eoman Federates to win possession
of an eminence (possibly Megrin), in which the Vandals were
successful. The Federates then fled for a mile along the road
to rejoin their own army and met Uliaris with 800 guardsmen,
who seeing them galloping in disorder turned themselves and
galloped back to Belisarius.

Gelmier now had the victory in his hands, but the gods were
determined to destroy him. The historian who tells the tale
and who witnessed the cavalry riding back in terror to the
commander dll-chief, declares that Had Gelimer pursued im-
mediately I do not think that even Belisarius would have
withstood him, but our cause would have been utterly ruined,
so large appeared the multitude of the Vandals and so great the

^ B.V, i. 18. 18. From the state-* nearer Decimum.
ment {ib, 12.) that the Salt-plain is 40 ^ From Maxula the shortest road

stades from Decimum, we may infer to Carthago was along the shore,
that the engagement occurred at but this way was impracticable on
that distance (5 to 6 miles). The account of the canal connecting the
eastern edge of the Salt-plain is much sea with the lake.

XVII

THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA

135

fear they inspired ; or if lie had made straight for Carthage
he would have slain easily all the men with John, and would
have preserved the city and its treasures, and would have taken
our ships which had approached near, and deprived us not only
of victory but of the means of escape.” ^

Gelimer was a man of sentimental temperament. When he
reached Ad Decimum and saw the dead body of his brother he
was completely unmanned. He set up loud lamentations and
could think of nothing but burying the corpse ; and so, as the
historian remarks, he blunted the’ edge of opportunity,” and
such an opportunity did not recur.

Meanwhile Belisarius had rallied the fugitives and administered
a solemn rebuke. On learning exactly what had happened, he
rode at full speed to Decimum and found the barbarians in com-
plete disorder. They did not wait for his attack but fled as fast
as they could, not towards Carthage but westward towards
Numidia. They lost many, and the fighting ended at night, when
John’s troops and the Huns arrived on the scene. A consider-
able victory had been gained, but it was a victory which Gelimer
had presented to Belisarius ; it ought to have been a defeat.

The night was passed at Decimum, and on the following day
Antonina arrived with the infantry and the whole army marched
to Carthage, arriving at nightfall. Its inhabitants opened the
gates and welcomed the victor with a brilliant illumination.
But Belisarius was cautious, and he would not enter that night,
partly because he feared an ambuscade and partly because he
was resolved that his soldiers should not plunder the city. The
next day (September 15) the army marched in, in formation of
battle. Belisarius need not have been afraid ; no snare was set.

He seated himself on the king’s throne, and consumed the
dinner which Gelimer had confidently ordered to be ready for
his o\vn victorious return. The inhabitants welcomed the
deliverer, and the Imperial fleet sailed into the lake of Tunis.
Belisarius lost no time in repairing the avails of the city and
rendering it capable of sustaining a siege. Meanvrhile the
Moorish tribes of Numidia and Byzacium, learning the issue of
the battle, hastened to send friendly embassies to the conqueror.^

^ B.V.i. 19. 25 sqq, Moorish chiefs to receive as tokens of

2 Before the Vandal ocenpation office from the Emperor a gilded silver
it had been the custom of the client staff and a silver cap in the form of

136 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Gelinier and Ms vanquished army had fled to the plain of
Bulla Eegia.^ His first care was to send the bad news to his
brother Tzazo/ who commanded the SardinianV expedition,
imperatively recalling him. Tzazo, who had succeeded in re-
establishing the Vandal authority in Sardinia, returned with his
troops, and Gelimer thus reinforced marched townrrds Carthage.
He cut the aqueduct, and he attempted to prevent provisions
from arriving in the city, which he hoped to reduce by blockade.
He sent secret agents to undermine the loyalty of the inhabitants
and the Imperial army. In this he had some success. The
auxiliary Huns seem to have determined to stand aloof in the
approaching struggle and then rally to the aid of the victorious
party.^

About the middle of December Belisarius judged that the
time had come to bring matters to an issue. Gelimer had
pitched his camp at Tricaniaron,^ on the banks of the Mejerda,
about twenty miles west of Carthage. Here were collected not
only his soldiers but their wives and cMldren and property.
The battle of Tricamaron was in some respects a repetition of
the battle of Ad Decimum. It was a battle of cavalry. The
Eoman infantry was again far behind and did not come up till
the late afternoon when the issue wns virtually decided. It
was only after repeated charges that the mailed Eoman horsemen
succeeded in breaking the enemy’s lines. Tzazo and many
others of the bravest officers fell. The Vandals fled to their
camp, and the Huns wdio had hitherto refused to join in the
combat now joined in the pursuit. As soon as the infantry
arrived, the victors fell upon the camp, and Gelimer, seeing
that all was lost, fled with a few" attendants into the wilds of
Niimidia. All his soldiers who could escape sought refuge in
the churches of the surrounding district. There wn.s no pursuit.
The Eoman troops thought of nothing but of seizing the rich
spoil, women and treasures, which awaited them in the camp.

a crow'll, a white cloak, a white tunic, victorious they would bo kejit in
and a gilded boot. BeliHarius sent Africa, see BTV, ii. 1. 6. Belisarius
these to them now and gave them swore to them that when tlie Vandals
liresents of money. B.F. i. 25. 7. vrere defeated he would send them

1 Hammam Baraji, on the borders home with all their booty, but not-
of the Proconsular province and withstanding tins they' played a
Numidia. double game at Tricamaron (ib. 2. 3).

^ For the discontent of the Huns, ® The place has not been identi-
who feared that if the Romans were fied. ,

XVII

137

THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA

Tlie general was utterly powerless to restore discipline, and lie
passed an anxious night. He feared that some of the enemy,
realising the situation, would attack Ms disorderly troops ; and
if any thing of the kind had happened,’’ says Procopius, I
think that not a Eoman would have escaped to enjoy Ms booty.”
The victory of Tricamaron (middle of December, a.d. 533)
destroyed the Vandal kingdom. But it was due to the weakness
and incompetence of the king. He had no idea of using to
advantage Ms great numerical preponderance in cavalry. Even
after the defeat, if he had not run away, he might have
annihilated the enemy busy with their loot.

It is to be observed that both the actions of the short campaign
were fought and won by the Eoman cavalry, as in the battle
of Daras. The more numerous infantry might almost as well
not have been in Africa. There is room for wonder whether if
Belisarius had been opposed to a commander of some ability
and exi^erience in warfare, he would not have been hopelessly
defeated. His secretary, Procopius, expresses amazement at
the issue of the war, and does not hesitate to regard it not as
a feat of superior strategy but as a paradox of fortune.^ But
if in this campaign Belisarius did not display signal military
talent, there can be no question as to Ms skill in holding together
the undisciplined and heterogeneous troops wMch he com-
manded. The Federates thought of notMng but securing booty ;
they were inclined to regard themselves as independent allies ;
again and again, but for the general’s firmness and tact, their
insubordinate spirit might have been disastrous.

The Vandal warriors who had fled to the asylum of sanctuaries
surrendered to the Eoman general, who promised that they
would be well treated and sent to Constantinople in spring.
All the treasures belonging to Gelimer were seized in Hippo
Eegius.^ Belisarius then made arrangements to assert the
Imperial authority throughout the Vandal dominions, of wMch
he had yet occupied but a small part. He sent detachments by
sea to take possession- of Sardinia and Corsica, the Balearic

^ lb. 7. 18 sqq. See DieW, oj?. ^ 17. 412), must have

sqq. eome from this treasure. Mommsen

{Hut. 8chr. i. p. 566) conjectures it
2 A silver basin, found in 1875 not may have been a gift from Belisarius
far from Feltre, with the inscription to a Herul officer, who might have
Geilamir Vandalorum et taken it to Italy.

138

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Islands, the fortress of Septnm in Tingitana, on the straits of
Gibraltar, and Caesarea (Cherchel) on the coast of Mauretania.
But the task of establishing Roman administration throughout
the African proyinces, and especially in the three Mauretanias,
was to require several years and far more strenuous military
exertions than were needed to destroy the power of the Tandals.

Gelimer had fled to Mount Papua in the wilds of ISfiimidia,
where he found among the Moors a miserable but impregnable
refuge. Here for three months he and the friends who were
with him endured hunger and cold, blockaded by the Herul
leader Pharas, whose followers watched the paths at the foot
of the mountain. It was a tedious watch during the cold
winter months. Pharas sent a friendly message to the king
counselling him to surrender. The pride of Gelimer could not
yet brook the thought, but he besought Pharas to send him a
loaf, a sponge, and a lyre. He had not tasted baked bread since
he had come to the mountain ; he wanted a sponge to dry his
tears ; and a lyre that he might sing a song which he had com-
posed on his misfortunes. The curious request, which was
readily granted, illustrates the temperament of Gelimer, who
loved the luxury of grief. ^ At length (in March) pitying the
suflerings of his faithful attendants, he surrendered, assured of
honourable treatment. He was taken to Constantinople, where
he adorned the triumph of Belisarius. When he saw the Emperor
sitting in all his splendour in the Kathisma of the Hippodrome,
he repeated to himself, Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.’’ An
ample estate in Galatia was granted to him., and the dignity of
Patrician would have been conferred on him, if he had not
resolutely refused to abandon his Arian religion.^

The difflculties of the command of Belisarius were illustrated
by the intrigues which the subordinate generals began to spin
against him after his final success. They wrote secretly to
Constantinople insinuating that he was aiming at the throne,
Justinian doubtless loiew what these charges were worth. He
gave Belisarius the choice of returning to Constantinople or of

^ We saw how he indulged it at noted. This new condition for the
an inopportune moment, at the battle Patriciate was evidently laid down
of Ad Decimum. His meeting with by Justinian. In the tilth century
his brother Tzazo gave him another Aipar and Theoderic, both Arians,
opportunity. had been created patricians,

- TJie progress of bigotry is to be

XVII

139

THE RECONQUEST OF AFRICA

remaining in Africa. Belisarius prudently cliose to return, and
was rewarded by a triumpb, wMch. at tliis time was an exceptional
honour for a private person (a.b. 534). He brought back with
him a captive king with the choicest of the Vandal warriors ; ^
an immense treasure ; and what above all appealed to the piety
of the Emperor and to the sentiment of orthodox Christians,
King Solomon’s golden vessels of which Gaiseric had robbed
Rome and of which Titus had despoiled Jerusalem.^ He was
soon to be entrusted with the conduct of a longer and more
arduous enterprise.

§ 2. The Settlement and the Moorish Wars (a.b. 534-548)

The general idea of the Emperor’s scheme for the administra-
tion of the African provinces was to wipe out all traces of the
Vandal conquest, as if it had never been, and to restore the
conditions which had existed before the coming of Gaiseric.
The ecclesiastical settlement, which lay near Justinian’s heart,
was easy and drastic.^ All the churches which the conquered
Arians had taken for their own worship were restored to the
Catholics, and heretics were treated with the utmost intolerance.
Vandals, even those who were converted from their religious
errors, were excluded from public offices. The rank and file
of the Vandal fighting men became the slaves of the Roman
soldiers who married the women. All the estates which had
passed into the hands of the barbarians were to be restored to
the descendants of the original owners who could establish their
claims, — a measure which led to the forgery of titles and endless
lawsuits.^ The ultimate result of the whole policy was the
disappearance of the Vandal population in Africa.

When he received the news of the victory of Tricamaron,
Justinian must have proceeded immediately, if he had not
already begun, to prepare the details of the future government
of Africa ; for the whole scheme was published in April a.b.

^ Most of them wore formed into ^ Also the Imperial ornaments

five cavalry regiments, known as which Gaiseric had taken from

Vandali lustiniani, and stationed on Home, G,J, i, 27. 1, § G. For the
the Persian frontier, Procopius, ib. mosaics on tiie walls of the Chalce
14. 17. Some entered the private see above, p. 54.
service of Belisarius {B.O, hi. 1). ® Justinian, Nov. 37.

Perhaps there were about 3000 in ^ Nov. 30 (a.d. 535) makes pro-

all. visions to remedy those evils.

140 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

534.^ Its general cliaraeter was on the sj^stem which

was ill force before the Vandal conquest, but the changed
circumstances required some modifications. Formerly Africa
had been a diocese of the Prefecture of Italy. This axraiigement
could not be maintained as Italy was in the hands of the Ostro-
goths. Hence the civil governor was invested with the title
of Praetorian Prefect of Africa, and enjoyed the coiTesponding
dignity and emoluments. Under him were the goveniors of
the seven provinces : Proconsularis, Byzacena, Tripolitana,
Humidia, the two Mauretanias, and Sardinia.^ But the compass
of the Second or Western Mauretania (Caesariensis) was extended
so as to include Tingitana, which in old days had belonged
to the diocese of Spain.

The military establishment was placed under a Master of
Soldiers,^ a new creation, since in old days the armies of Africa
had been under the supreme command of the Master of Soldiers
in Italy. The fundamental distinction between the mobile army
and the frontier troops was retained. The mobile army con-
sisted of the divisions of the comitatenses who had been sent with
Belisarius, of foedemti, and of native African troops {genliles)^
The frontier troops were distributed in four districts, under
dukes, who had authority also over mobile troops stationed in
these military provinces.^ The establishment of this orgaiiisa-
tioii throughout Africa was retarded for some years by wars
and mutinies, but it was begun by Behsarius before he departed,
and it was gradually carried out, along with an elaborate scheme
of fortification against the inroads of the Moorish tribes.

The Moors began hostilities before the Romans had time to
make provision for the defence of the country or to organise

^ C.J. i. 27. 1 and 2. The total cost
of the administration was less than
£30,000. Cp. above, Vol. I. p, 33, n. 1.

- G.J, iL i. § 12. In the text we
must read Zeugl for Tingif and
Mauritaniae for Mauritania, See
Diehl, op, dt 107 sgg, Proconsiilaris
Carthage (=Zeiigi), Byzacena and
Trip, were under Consulares ; the
other four under Cin the

old system, Numidia had a consular is.
Trip, a praeses. This change may be
explained, as Diehl suggests, by the fact
that in 534 Tripolitana was regarded
as entirely conquered, while most of
ISFumidia had still to be occupied.

® M agister militum Africae. Under
Mm was a magister pedituM (Proc.

B,y.n.lQ.2).

^ It included also a small body of
guard troops (Excubitores), who were
sent mth Solomon in 534.

® TripoEtana, Byzacena, Niiraidia,
and Mauretania. The chief stations,
where the dukes resided, were
respectively Leptis i\Iagna, Capsa or
Tlieiepte, Cirta, and Caesarea. A
commander of subordinate dignity,
with, the title of tribumis, was stationed
at Septum. The military received
larger salaries than the civil governons.

XVII

THE MOORISH WARS

141

the new civil administration. The situation was so grave that
Justinian, when he sent Solomon in autumn (a.d. 534) to replace
Belisarius, united in his hands the supreme civil as well as
military authority. Solomon was Praetorian Prefect as well as
Master of Soldiers.^ This appointment struck the note of a
change in the principles of x^^ovincial administration which had
prevailed since Diocletian. We shall see how elsewhere Justinian
departed from the general rule of a strict separation of the civil
and military powers. In Africa, although the two offices were
seldom united, perhaps only on three occasions,^ there is a
tendency from the beginning to subordinate the Praetorian
Prefect to the Master of Soldiers,^ and before the end of the
century the Master of Soldiers will become a real viceroy with
the title of Exarch.

The leading feature of the history of North Africa from the
Eoman reconquest to the Arab invasion in the middle of the
seventh century is a continuous struggle with the Moors, broken
by short periods of tranquillity. Each province had its own
enemies. Tripolitana was always threatened by the Louata,
Byzacena by the Erexi ; ^ the townspeople of Numidia lived in
dread of the Moors of the Aurasian lulls. Mauretania was
largely occupied by Berber tribes. The Roman government
never succeeded in ejecting a complete subjugation of the auto-
chthonous peoples. It was not an impossible task, if the right
means had been taken. But the Roman army was hardly
sufficient in numbers to maintain effectively the defence of a
long frontier, against enemies whose forces consisted of light
cavalry, immensely more numerous. This numerical inferiority
might have mattered little if the troops had been trustworthy.
But they were always ready to revolt against discipline, and in
war their thoughts were not on protecting the provinces but on

^ TiiG first Pr. Pr. of Africa had
boon Archelaus {G.J, i. 27. 1),

Soioraon was the first 7nag, m<iL
Afr,

“ Solomon (5*34-538),; Solomon (539-
543) ; Theodore (509 ; John BicL
a.f cj). Diehl, op. cit. 599). Perhaps
Sergius (544) should be added (Marcel-
linus, sub 541).

® This seems to bo the case with
Symmachiis under Germanus (536)

and Athanasius under Areobindus
(546). Diehl, op. cit. 117.

^ There were other tribes besides
the Louata and Frexi, but these were
the most yiroiniaeut. In Justinian’s
time, AntaJas was ’ the chieftain of
the Frexi and their confederate tribes ;
Cutsina was the chief of other tribes
in the same region ; labdas w’-as
king of the xVurasian Moors ; Mastigas
and Masuna were the leading princes
of the Mauretanian Moors.

1^25 tn^iURY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

securing booty. They could do work under a commander who
knew how to handle them, but such commanders were rare.
Most of the military governors found their relations with their
own soldiers as difficult a problem as their relations with the
Moors. Here we touch on a second cause of the failure of the
Romans to secure a lasting peace in Africa — ^the unfitness of
so many of their military governors. A succession of men like
Belisarius, Solomon, and John Troglita would probably have
succeeded, if not in establishing permanent and complete tran-
quillity, ■ at least in defending the frontiers efficiently. But
when a commander of this type had weathered a crisis or re-
trieved a disaster, he was too often succeeded by an incompetent
man, who had no control over the soldiers, no skill in dealing
with the Moors, and who undid by his inexperience all that his
predecessor had accomplished. And apart from these weaknesses,
it has been remarked with justice that the general military
policy was not calculated to pacify the restless barbarians
beyond the frontier. It was a policy of strict defence. The
elaborate system of fortresses which were speedily erected
throughout the provinces stood the inhabitants in good stead,
but they did not prevent raids, and the Romans only opposed
raids on Roman soil. Far more would have been effected if
the Romans had taken the offensive whenever there was a sign
of restlessness and sent flying columns beyond the frontier to
attack the Moors on their own ground. Finally the want of
success in dealing with the Moorish danger may have been partly
due to defective and inconsistent diplomacy.^

The one fact in the situation which enabled the Romans to
maintain their grip on Africa w-as the disunion among the Moors.
On more than one occasion they suffered such crushing disasters
that if the Moors had made a determined and united effort
the Imperial armies -would easily have been driven into the sea.
But the jealousies and quarrels among the chef tains hindered
common action ; and if one began a hostile movement, the
Romans could generally depend on the quiescence or assistance
of his neighbour.

On his arrival in Africa (a.d. 534) Solomon ^ had immediately

Illustrations of all these points behind; Justinian sent new forces;
will be found in Diehl, op. cit. and Solomon seems to have disposed

^ Belisarius left most of his cavalry of about 18,000 men (Diehl, 67, note 4).

XVII

THE MOORISH WARS

143

to take the field against Cutsina and other Moorish leaders
who descended upon Byzacena, while labdas was devastating
Numidia. He defeated the former at Mamma, but not decisively ;
they returned with reinforcements, and were thoroughly beaten
in the important battle of Mount Burgaon (early in a,t>, 535).^-
An expedition against the Numidian Moors in the following
summer was unsuccessful, but Solomon lost no time in setting
about the erection of fortified posts along the main roads in
Numidia and Byzacena. In a.d. 536 the Emperor regarded
peace as established and the Moors as conquered.^

The task of keeping the natives in check had at least been
well begun ; but it was interrupted by a dangerous military
revolt.

Various causes contributed to the mutiny. The pay of the
soldiers had fallen into arrears, because the taxes from which it
should have been defrayed had not been paid up. There was
'dissatisfaction about the division of booty. There were many
Arians among the barbarian federates in the army who were ill-
pleased at the intolerant religious policy which had been set in
motion.^ Men who had married Vandal women claimed the
lands which had belonged to their fathers or husbands and
had been confiscated by the State. Above all, Solomon did not
understand the art of tempering discipline by indulgence and
was not a favourite with either officers or men. A conspiracy
was formed to murder him at Easter {a.d. 536). It miscarried
because the courage of those who were chosen to do the deed
failed them, and then a great number of the disaffected, fearing
discovery, left Carthage and assembled in the plain of Bulla
Regia. Those who were left behind soon threw off the pretence
of innocence and the city was a scene of massacre and pillage.
Solomon, having charged his lieutenants Theodore and Martin
to do what they could in his absence, escaped by night, along with
his assessor, the historian Procopius, and sailed for Sicily, to
invoke the aid of Belisarius, who had just completed the conquest
of the island. Belisarius did not lose a moment in setting sail
for Carthage, in which he found Theodore beleaguered by the

^ These localities have not been some of them. Heniis ; and they
certainly identified. were instigated by the Arian clergy

2 \T^,„ n ‘7 Vandals who had lost their

^ ‘ ‘ ‘ * churches and their incomes. B. F. ii.

® Procopius says there were 1000, 14. 12-13.

siiolUMY UP lUJi LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap/

rebels. They were about 9000 strong ^ and under the command
of Stotzas, who was one of tbe private retainers of Martin. The
design of tHs upstart was to form an independent kingdom in
Africa for Mmself.

Theodore was on tbe point of capitulating when Belisarius
arrived, and on tbe news of bis appearance tbe rebels hastily
raised tbe siege and took the road for Numidia. It was a high
compliment to tbe prestige of tbe conqueror of the Vandals,
With tbe few troops who bad remained, loyal in Carthage, and
a hundred picked men whom be bad brought with him, Belisariiis
overtook Stotzas at Membressa ^ and defeated him. Tbe rebels
fled, but they did not submit. Bebsarius could not remain ;
news from Sicily imperatively recalled him. He arranged that
Solomon should withdraw from the scene, and that two officers,
Theodore and Ildiger, should assume responsibility until the
Emperor appointed Solomon’s successor. Soon after bis
departure the situation became worse, for the troops stationed
in Numidia, who bad been moved to cut off the retreat of Stotzas,
declared in bis favour. Two-thirds of tbe army were now in
rebellion.^

Justinian was happily inspired at this grave crisis. He sent
tbe right man to deal with it, bis cousin Germaniis, tbe patrician,
who already had bad experience of warfare on tbe Danube, as
Master of Soldiers in Thrace. He was appointed Master of
Soldiers of Africa, with extraordinary powers, and it was hoped
that Ms prestige as a member of tbe Imperial family would have
its influence in recalling tbe rebels to a sense of loyalty. His
first act was to proclaim that be bad come not to pimisli tbe
mutineers, but to examine and rectify their grievances. This
announcement was at once effective. Many of tbe soldiers left
tbe camp of tbe rebels and reported themselves at Carthage.
When it was known that they were handsomely treated and that
they received arrears of pay even for tbe weeks during wdiicb
they were in rebelbon, large numbers deserted tbe cause of
Stotzas, and Germanus found himself equal in strength to the

^ Including about 1000 Vandals, ® Mejez el*Bab, on the river
of whom 400 had returned from the Bagradas (Mojerda).
east. On the way from Constanti-
nople to Syria — where tliey were to ® This was found to be the case
form part of the frontier forces — by. Germanus, ulio investigated the
they succeeded in seizing a ship at nailitary register on his arrival.
Lesbos and landing in Africa. Proc. B.F. ii. 16. 3.

XVII

THE MOORISH WARS

1.45

insurgents. Stotzas, seeing ttat Ixis only chance was to strike
quickly, advanced on Carthage. A desperate battle was fought
at Scalas Veteres (Celias Vatari) in the spring (a.d. 537), and
the rebels were defeated. Moorish forces, under labdas and
other chiefs, who had promised to support Germanus, were
spectators of the combat, but according to their usual practice
they took no part till the victory was decided, and then they
joined in the pursuit, instead of falling on the exhausted victors.^

Germanus remained in Africa for two years and succeeded
in re-establishing discipline in the army. Then the experienced
Solomon was sent out to replace him (a.d. 639) and to complete
the military organisation of the provinces and the system of
defence, in which Justinian took a keen personal interest. He
began by weeding out of the army all those whom he suspected
as doubtful or dangerous, sending them to Italy or the East,
and he expelled from Africa the Vandal females who had done
much to instigate the mutiny. After successful campaigns
against the Aurasian Moors, he established his power solidly in
Humidia and Mauretania Sitifensis, and carried out the vast work
of strengthening the defences of the towns and building hundreds
of forts. Africa enjoyed a brief period of peace to which, amid
subsequent troubles, the provincials looked back with regret.

The great pestilence 'which devastated the Empire in a.d.
642 and 543 visited Africa and took a large toll from the army.
At the same time new troubles threatened from the Moors.
The Emperor, who gratefully recognised the services and abilities
of Solomon, appointed his nephew Sergius ^ duke of Tripolitana.
It was a thoroughly bad appointment. Sergius was incompetent,
arrogant, and debauched ; he was not even a brave soldier ; and
he proved a governor of the well-known type who cannot avoid
offending the natives. An insolent outrage committed against
a deputation of the Louata provoked that people to arms;
and by an imfortunate coincidence Solomon at the same time
succeeded in offending the powerful chief Antalas, who had
hitherto been friendly. The Moors joined forces, and in the
battle of Cillium ^ (a.d. 544) the Homans were utterly defeated
and Solomon was slain.

^ Diehl, op. cit. 87. of Ahtoniaa.

® Kasrin, west of Sheitla. Victor

2 Sergius was not only nephew of Tonn. sub 543 ; Procopius, B. F. ii.
Solomon; he was also son-in-law 21.

VOL. II n

146 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

The Imperial rule in Africa was again in .grave danger. The
news of the defeat stirred the Berber tribes all along the frontier ;
even the Tisigoths seized the occasion to send forces across the
straits, and unsuccessfully besieged Septum.^ The Emperor
made the fatal mistake of appointing Sergius, who was at once
incapable and unpopular, as Solomon’s successor. Stotzas,
who since his defeat by Germanus had lived with a handful of
followers in the wilds of Mauretania, now reappeared upon the
scene and joined the Moors of Antalas, while Sergius quarrelled
with his officers. The Emperor,, seeing by the tidings from
Africa that Sergius was unequal to the situation, committed
another blunder. Instead of superseding him, he despatched a
second incompetent commander, the patrician Areobindus,
who had married his own niece Praejecta. He made Areobindus
co-ordinate with Sergius, but he was to command the army of
Byzacena, Sergius that of Numidia. The two generals did not
agree, and misfortune ensued. The Byzacene forces, rel 3 dng on
the support of Sergius, who left them in the lurch, were severely
defeated at Thacia, between Sicca Veneria (el-Kef) and Carthage
(end of A.D. 545).^ After this disaster Sergius was relieved of
his post and Areobindus replaced him. He was a man of little
merit, and in a few months he was removed by a conspiracy.
Guntarith, the duke of Numidia, aspired to play the part of
Stotzas, and having come to an understanding with some of the
Moorish chiefs, he suddenly seized the palace at Carthage, and
Areobindus was assassinated (March A.n. 536). Praejecta fell
into the hands of Guntarith, who formed the plan of marrying
her. But Guntarith’s supremacy lasted little over a month.
A portion of the army remained loyal and found a leader in an
Armenian officer, Artabanes, who brought about the murder of
the rebel at a banquet (May). Justinian appointed Aitabanes
Master of Soldiers of Africa, and Praejecta offered her hand to
her deliverer.^ But Artabanes was already married and Theodora
refused to permit a divorce. He followed Praejecta to Constan-
tinople, and the Emperor tried to console him by creating him
Master of Soldiers in p'aesenti and Count of the Federates.

The situation was deplorable. The ravages of the Moors

^ Isidore, Hist Goth. 42, p. 284; son of Sisinniolus, one of the best
Procop. B.G. ii, 30. 15. officers in the army, fell.

2 Thacia has been identified with
Borj-Messaudi. In this battle, John, ^ See above, p. 33.

XVII

THE MOORISH WARS

147

during the last three years had exhausted and depopulated the
provinces. At last Justinian made a happy appointment.
John Troglita, who had served with distinction under Belisarius
and Solomon and was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions
of the country, was recalled from the East, where he had given
new proofs of military talent, and sent to take command of the
armies of Africa (end of a.I). 646). Happily the Moors were
divided, and John was a diplomatist as well as a general. He
was able to secure the help of Moorish contingents in his cam-
paigns, Early in a.d. 547 he inflicted a decisive defeat on the
most dangerous of his opponents, Antalas.^ But the troubles of
Africa were not yet over. A few months later, the Berbers of
Tripolitana rose under Carcasan, and won a crushing victory
over the Imperial troops in the plain of Gallica.^ Antalas took
the field again and joined his triumphant neighbours. But
the Koman cause was retrieved in the great battle of the Fields
of Cato,^ where seventeen Moorish leaders fell, among them
Carcasan (early in a.d. 548). This victory secured for Africa
complete tranquillity for nearly fourteen years. The relations
between the Empire and the dependent Moorish princes were
renewed and revised. The administration of the provinces was
placed on a normal footing. The inhabitants and the wasted
lands had time to recover from the devastations. The military
defences of the frontier were re-established and improved.^
John Troglita, who seems to have governed Africa for about four
years after his great victory, stands out, with Belisarius and
Solomon, as the third hero of the Imperial reoccupation of
Africa. His deeds inspired the African poet Corippiis, whose
Johannis us nearly all we know of his campaigns.^

Justinian was to have one more wg,r in Africa, and it appears
to have been entirely due to the stupid treachery of the military
governor. The loyalty of the aged chief Cutsina was secured by
an annual pension. In a.d. 563, when he came to Carthage to

^ The scene of this battle is un- ® The full narrative of Procopius,
known ; probably somewhere south B. F., stops with the arrival of John,
of Sufetula, see Diehl, op. ciL 370. But he mentions briefly tlie three

“ ]\hnv Maret, south-east of Gabes. battles of a. d. 54.7-548,* and grimly
lb. 374. concludes w'ith words which sum

3 UnknoAvn locality in Byzacena. up the terrible sufferings which, the
Corippus, Jotoinhs, viiL 165. On this provinces had endured : ‘'Thus, at
occasion many Moors, especially the long last, the Libyans who survived,
faithful Cutsina, fought for the Ptomans. few in number and very i)oor, won
^ Cp. Diehl, 380. some rest.”

M-S HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

receiye tlie money, he was assassinated by order of John Eoga-
tbiniis, the Master of Soldiers.^ The motive of the crime is
unknown, but the sons of the murdered Moor immediately raised
Nimiidia in revolt. The forces in the province were insufficient
to cope with the insurrection, and the Emperor was compelled
to send an army under his nephew Marcian, who succeeded,
perhaps by diplomatic means, in re-establishing peace.

§ 3. The' Fortification of the Provinces

While Solomon was fighting with the Moors, he was at the
same time engaged in carrying out a large scheme of defensive
fortification to protect the African provinces against the in-
cursion of the barbarians in the future ; he was fortifying and
rebuilding old towns and constructing new fortresses. The
building of fortresses was one of the notable features of Justinian’s
policy. All the provinces exposed to foes in the East, in the
Balkan peninsula, and in Africa were protected by forts, con-
structed on principles carefully thought out ; but it is in Africa,
where the soil is covered with their ruins, that the system of
defence which was employed can best be studied. The numerous
walls and citadels dating from the days of Solomon, which are
still to be seen, are the best commentary on the principles and
rules laid doum in contemporary military handbooks.^

Fortified towns, connected by a chain of small forts, formed
the first frontier defence. Behind this there was a second barrier,
larger towns with larger garrisons, which were all to afford a
refuge to the inhabitants of the neighbouiiiood in case of an
invasion. MTien the watchmen in the frontier stations discerned
menacing movements of the tribes, they transmitted the alarm
by the old system of fire signals by night or smoke signals by
day,^ so that the people of the villages might have time to find

^ T1i 6 source is John Mai. xviii. refer the reader who is interested in
495, transcribed and completed in the subject. He has Vvu'itteii Ms
Theophanes, a.m. 6055. John is admirable description ivith the work
called simply ; but this, as of tho Anonymus Tactieus beside

Diehl points out (456), certainly him, and refers throughout to its
means the 7nag. mil,, not the Praet. pages. Here I can only indica,te
Pref., who at this time was probably briefly the general cliaraeter of the
Areobindns. defensive system. Details would bo

^ The v'hoie system of the African useless vdthout illustrations,
defences has been explained and ^ See Anon. Tact, viii., and corn-
illustrated at length by Diehl in pare the notes of the editors, p.
FAfrique byzantine, to which I may 315.

XVII FORTIFICATION OF AFRICAN PROVINCES 149

refuge in the walled towns and the garrisons of the inland places
might be prepared.

In nmnj cases the towns were entirely surrounded by walls,
and in some had the additional defence of detached forts. In
other cases they were open, and protected by the citadel. The
neighbouring strongholds of Theveste, Thelepte, and Ammaedera
on the frontier of Byzacena present good examples of the three
types. The features of a Mly fortified tomi were a wall with
towers, an outer wall, and a fosse ; the space between the two
walls being large enough to accommodate the refugees who
flocked in from the open country in a time of danger. But this
scheme is not invariably found ; sometimes there was no outer
wall, sometimes there was no ditch. These variations depended
upon local circumstances, as the form of the fortress depended
on the nature of the ground. A rectangular shape was adopted
when it was possible, but very irregular forms w-ere sometimes
required by the site. Theveste is a well-preserved example of
the large fortress, rectangiflar, measuring about 350 by 305 yards,
with three gates, and frontier towers ; Thamugadi of the smaller
castle (about 122 by 75 yards), with a tower at each corner and
in the centre of each side. Small forts, like Lemsa, had a tower
at each of the four angles.

From Capsa (Gafsa) in the Byzacene province to Zabi Justiiiia-
na and Thamalla in Mauretania Sitifensis the long line of fortresses
can be traced round the north foothills of the Aurasian mountains.
Thelepte, Theveste, with Ammaedera behind it to the north,
Mascula and Bagai, Thamugadi, Lambaesis, Lambiridi, Gellae,
and Tubunae ^ were the principal advanced military stations,
which were connected and flanked by small castles and redoubts.
When invaders from the south had penetrated this line, the
inhabitants might seek shelter in Sufes (Sbiba) and Chusira
(Kessera) in Byzacena ; in Laribus (Lorbeus), Sicca Veneria (Kef),
Thubursicum Bure (Tebursuk), Thignica (Ain Tunga) in the
Proconsular Province ; Madaura (Mdaurech), Tipasa (Tifech),
Calama (Guelma), Tigisis (Ain el-Borj) in Nimiidia, to mention
a few of the military posts in the interior.

The Mauretanian provinces were more lightly held. It is
interesting to observe that Justinian took special care to

^ These places are now laiown as Medinet el-Kedima, Tebessa, Haidra,
Khencheia, Ksar Bagai, Timgad, Lambese, Onled Arif, Zerga, Tobna,

150 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE ch. xvii

strengthen by impregnable walls the fortress of Septum on the
straits of Gades. This ultimate outpost of the Empire was to be
a post of observation. He gave express directions that it should
be entrusted to a loyal and judicious commander, who was to
watch the straits, gather information as to political events in
Spain and Gaul, and send reports to his superior the duke of
Mauretaniad „

^ G. J. L 27. 2, 2. Procopius, Aed. vL 7. 14-16.

CHAPTER XVIII

THE RECONQUEST OE ITALY (l.)

§ 1. The Last Years of King Theoderic {died a.d. 526)

The ecclesiastical reunion of Rome with, the East, accomplislied
by Justinian and Pope Hormisdas, soon produced political
efiects. It- would be rash to suppose that the idea of abolishing
the Gothic viceroyalty and reasserting the immediate power
of the Emperor in Italy had assumed a definite shape in the
mind of Justinian in the early years of his uncle’s reign. His
own strong theological convictions may suffice to account for
his policy. But the restoration of ecclesiastical unity was
evidently the first step that would have been taken by a states-
man who nursed the design of overthrowing the Gothic power.
The existence of the schism did not indeed reconcile the Italian
Catholics to the administration of the Goths, but it tended to
render many of them less eager for a close political bond with
Constantinople.

The death of Anastasius, with whom Theoderic never had
been on terms of amity, was an important event for the Italian
government. It can hardly be a coincidence that it was after
Justin’s succession that arrangements were made for the suc-
cession to the Ostrogothic throne. Theoderic had no male
children. His daughter Amalasuntha had received a Roman
education, and he had selected as her husband Eutharic, an
Ostrogoth of royal lineage who was living obscurely in Spain.^

^ Ho was descended from the 518), Borne was surprised and de-
famous king Herinanric(Jordaiies gives lighted by the magnificent slujws of
the genealogy, Gel. 81), and was wild beasts procured from Africa
discovered by Theoderic when he and the lavish largesses which signal-
assumed the regency of Spain, His ised his assumption of the consulship
full name was Eutharic Cilliga ( <7. /.L. in January 519 («6,, sub a.). It was
vi. 32003; Cassiodorus, Ghroii.^ sub probably on the occasion of his consul-

151

152

HISTORY LdTER ROMAN chap.

The marriage was celebrated in a.d. 516, and a son, Athalaric,
was born three years later. This infant Theoderic destined to
be his successor. It was the right of the Goths to choose their
own king, but the choice could hardly be made without an
understanding with the Emperor if the future king was to be
also the Emperor’s viceroy and Master of Soldiers in Italy.
That Justin was consulted, and that he agreed to Theoderic’s
plan, seems to be clearly shown by the fact that Eutharic
was nominated consul for a.d. 619. As Goths were strictly
excluded from the consulship, this could only be done by
the personal motion of the Emperor, who thus signified his
approbation of the settlement of the succession to the Italian
throne.

When the reunion of the Churches was accomplished, Justin
paid a marked compliment both to Theoderic and to the Senate
by resigning the nomination of an eastern consul for a.I). 522
in order that the two sons of the distinguished Eoman senator
Boethius might fill the consulship as colleagues.^ It seemed as
if cordial relations between Ravenna and Constantinople might
now be firmly established, yet within a year the situation became
more difficult and dangerous than ever.

We have no precise information as to the views of Eutharic.^
It appears that he entertained strong national feelings and was
devoted to his Arian faith; and he may have been somewhat
impatient of the moderate policy of his father-in-law and the
compromises to which it led. We do not know whether he
would have been prepared to denounce the capitulations and
cut Italy off from the Empire as an independent Gothic state.
But he was suspicious of the intentions of the Emperor and of
the loyalty of the Roman Senate. He died in the course of
A.D. 522, but he may have influenced the situation by propa-
gating these suspicions in Gothic circles. And the suspicions
seemed to be confirmed by the edicts which Justin issued against
the Arians. The Goths connected these efforts for the extinction
of Arianism with the reunion of the Church ; they feared that
the Imperial policy would provoke an anti- Arian movement

ship that Cassiodoras eulogised him ^ Ou this occasion Boethius pro-
in the Senate house [Yur. ix. 25) nounced a panegyric on the king,
in an oration of which a fragment Dc cona, Phil, ii. 3; Amcd, II older L
is preserved {Pamg. pp. 4G5 sqq., cp. ^ See Anon. VaL (the writer hostile
p. 470). to Theoderic) 80.

XVIII

153

LAST YEARS OF KING THEODERIC

in Italy ; and the consequence was a growing mistrust of the
Senate, and especially of these senators who had taken a pro-
minent part in terminating the schism. Pope Hormisdas was
trusted by Theoderic, but he died in August a.d. 623, and his
successor, John I., was associated with those who /desired a
closer dependency of Italy oh the Imperial government, as a
means of attaining greater power and freedom for the Eoman
Senate.

It had been a token of Theoderic’s goodwill when in autumn,
A.D. 522, he appointed Boethius to the post of Master of Offices.
Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius was a man of
illustrious birth and ample fortune, whose life was dedicated
to philosophy and science.^ Translated from the society of
his kinsmen and friends at Eome into the court circles of
Eavenna, he did not find himself at home and could not
make liimself popular. His severe ethical standards repelled
the pliant and opportune palatine officials who surrounded
the king, and probably he was not very tactful.^ He had
held office for about a year when a storm suddenly burst over
his head.

An official seized letters which had been despatched by some
Eoman senators to the Emperor.^ In this correspondence
passages occurred which could be interpreted as disloyal to the
govermnent of Theoderic,^ and the patrician Faustus Albinus
junior was particularly compromised. The matter passed into
the hands of Cyprian, a referendarius whose duty it was to
prepare the case for the king’s Consistorium, which was the

^ He had been consul in 510. He Boethius, De cons. Phil i. 4 ; Anon,
constructed a sun-dial, a water-clock, Val. 85-87 ; Lib. pont.fVUa Johcmnis,
and a cciestiai globe at Theoderic’s pp. 275-276 ; Procopius, B.G. i. 1.
I'equest, to he sent as gifts to the The questions relating to the legal
Burgundian Iving. For his writings procedure and the exact nature of
see below, § 11. the charges have been much dis-

“ Ho seems to have oi)posed and cussed, most recently by Cessi in
prevented the appointment of a his introduction to Anon. Val., where
certain Decoratus to the Quaestor- the literature of the subject will
ship, because he considered him as be found, p, cxxv.
having menieni ncquissimi scurrae Advcrsmregymm rerjis. Thepass-

cleJatorisque [De consol. Phil. iu. 4). age in Suidas suggests that Albinus
Decoratus became Quaestor after himself was not the writer of any of
the fall of Boethius. The epitaj)h in the letters ; they vnre written hy his
Rossi, Inscr. Ohr. ii. p. 113, may be friends. He had been consul in
his. 493 and Praet, Pref. of Italy in 513.

^ Severus was the name of the He seems to have belonged to the
ofhcial (Suidas, s.v. The Decian family (cp. Smidwall, Abh.

sources for the following events are p* 87).

154 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

tribunal for cases of treason.^ It is important to note that
C3q}rian was a man of unusual parts, and enjoyed the confiden.ce
of Theoderic, whom he used often to accompany on his rides.^
The intercepted letters of the friends of Albinus justified an
investigation. Boethius was a member of the Consistory eo?
officio, and he spoke in defence of Albinus.^ It was impossible
to deny the material facts, and Boethius took the line that
Albinus was acting not in his private capacity but as a senator,
and therefore was not alone responsible for his act. The
whole Senate, including myself, is responsible ; there can be
no action against Albinus as an individual.” This defence was
construed as a confession, and made the ground of a charge of
treason against Boethius himself, and three men who belonged
to ministerial circles hut were under a cloud came forward to
support the charge. He was arrested, and, as a matter of
course, deprived of his office. Cassiodorus was appointed in
his stead, and it may be ascribed to his influence that no
attempt was made to involve other members of the Senate in
the crime.^

Up to this point there is no reason for thinking that there
was anything illegal in the procedure; but now, instead of
completing the process of Albinus and trying Boethius before the

^ For the duties of the referendarii
see Cass. Var. vi. 17 {per eum
^whis causaruni ordities expommtiir).
Boethius {loc. cit.) sj)eaks of Cyprian
as a delator, Scveriis was the delator,
not Cyx>rian, who only handled the
delatio ; and Cessi defends him as
having simply performed his legal
duty. But he. may have shown a zeal
and partiality in the prosecution which
would explain the strong language of
Boethius. Cp, Anon. Val 86.

“ See the panegwics of Cyprian’s
qualities in the letters canferring on
him the office of Oojncs s, larg, and
recommending him to the Senate of
wliicli this ap[>ointment made him
a momher, a.d. 524. Cassiodorus, Var.
V. 40 and 41. He knew Gothic as well
as Greek and I^atin {trifarii Unguis).

^ I cannot agree with C^essi (]j. cxlix.)
that it can he inferred from Cass ib. vi
6. 2 that it was a duty of the Master
of Offices to defend acensed senators.
But any member of the Consistory
could express his opinion on a case.

^ Cp. Sundwall, Ab/i. p. 246.
Sundwall thinks that the guilt of
Boethius lay not in his defence of
Albinus, but m trying to suppress
the accusation (p. 243). Cyprian
was the subordinate of Boethius,
and Boethius appears, on grounds of
procedure, to have raised objections
to the denunciation of vSeverus being
I’eceived {delatorein ne doemnenta
deferret quibus senatum makstatis
reum facer et impedlre crinTuiannir {De
com. Phil i. 4)). But surely this was
only an incidental not the

serious charge. The three witnesses
were Basilius, Gpilio, and Gaudontius,
of whom Opilio was Cyprian’s brother
and a relative, perhaps son-in-law, of
Basilius. Boethius says that Basilius
was in debt, and tlie other two Jiad
been condemned to exile oh multi-
plices fraiides, A year or two after
Theoderic’s death Gjiilio was ap-
|.)ointed com. sacr. larg. and eulo-
gised by Cassiodorus (Fur, viii. 16
and 17) in the usual way.

XVIII

LAST YEARS OF KING THEODERIC

155

OonsistorVj tlie matter was taken out of the hands of that body,
and the two men were thrown into prison at Ticiniim (late autumn,
A.D. 523). Thither the Prefect of Eome was summoned, and
with him the king proceeded with the investigation of the case.^
Boethius was found guilty and condemned to death. Albinus
drops out of the story, his fate is not recorded. Theoderic was
determined to teach the Senate a lesson, but perhaps he thought
it better to let the course of political events guide him to an
ultimate decision as to the fate of the distinguished philosopher.
In his dungeon ^ Boethius composed his famous book on the
Consolation of Philosophy, and probably expected that his
sentence would be mitigated. But he was put to death (in the
late summer or autumn of a,t>. 524),^ and, it was said, in a cruel
manner. A cord was tightened round his head, and he was
despatched with a club. ^

While Boethius was awaiting his trial, .the senators had met
and debated. They were thoroughly alarmed, and passed decrees
designed to exculpate themselves, and therefore repudiating
Boethius and Albinus. The only man perhaps w^ho stood by
Boethius was his father-in-law Symmachus, the head of the
Senate. He may have used strong language ; he declined at
least to associate himself with the subservient decrees. Thereby
he laid himself open to the charge that he defended treason
and sympathised with traitors. He was arrested, taken to
Ravenna, and executed. It was a foolish act, the precaution
of a tyrant.^

^ Boethius speaks of a forged sentence was passed. Nine months
letter which ^\'as used against him, or more seem to have elapsed between
lac. cit. In ordinary criminal trials his arrest and execution. October 23
of senators the tribunal corrsisted was the date accepted in ecclesiastical
of the Prefect and five senators tradition for his death, but this
(Mommsen, JStrafrecht, 287), and this tradition only emerges three centuries
procedure may have been adopted as later and has been questioned (cp.
Sundwali suggests {op. cit. 248), al- the article on Boethius in i). C'/^r. i?.).
though, as it was a case of treason, the See Pfeilschiftei> Theod. der Grasse,
proper tribunal w’-as the Consistorium. p. 164.

In any case, I am sure that the The passage in Boethius, i. 4, an

ordinary view that the optasse illvus ordinis salute m nefas

the case and sentenced Boethius is vdeabo f ille quidem suis de me decretis
mistaken (so Cessi, cxlviii.). titi hoe nefas esset efficeret,U

“ Probably at Ticmuin. But In my oiiinion it supplies the key
Boethius himself had been transferred to the arrest of Symmachus, wdiicii
to CJalvenzaiio (Anon. Val. 87) near historians have not explained. It is
Melcgnano, about seven miles south evident that he did not subscribe to
of Milan. the decree repudiating his son-in-law,

^ do not know when the for whose wrongs he was mourning

156

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

It is probable that these events had some connexion with
an Imperial edict which was issued about this time, threatening
Arians with severe penalties, excluding them from public offices
and from service in the army, and closing their churches. Theo-
deric was alarmed. He resented the revival of pains and penalties
against his fellow-religionists in the East, and he saw in the
edict an encouragement to the Italians to turn against their
Arian fellow-subjects. But the edict is not preserved, and we
do not know the exact date of its promulgation ; so that we
cannot decide whether it influenced Theoderic’s policy before
the execution of Boethius. It may not have been issued till
after his death.^ We can only say that severe measures against
the Arians had been adopted, and reported in Italy, before the
autumn of a.d. 52r5. Theoderic determined to bring matters
to an issue at Constantinople by coming forward as the protector
of his fellow-heretics in the East. He selected as his ambassador
John, the bishop of Eome, who was induced to undertake the
distasteful commission of urging the Emperor to relax Ms policy
and of conveying to Mm the royal tMreat that, if he persisted,
reprisals on Italian Catholics would be the consequence. The
Pope set forth, accompamed by several bishops and prominent
senators, some time between the begimring of September and

(Bootliins, op, cit, ii. 4), and lie can favour of the Goths, made after the
hardly have failed to speak in his negotiations with Pope John. The
defence. This attitude in tlie Senate date of 523”524 for a measure against
furnished Theoderic vdtli an excuse the Arians depends on Theophanes,
for arresting a man whom he had a. M. 6016, where the mission of
reason to fear as a near and dear Pope John is misdated. I cannot
relative of Boethius. The sources agree mth Pfeiisehifter (op. cit. 168)
say nothing of a trial, but it seems that C.J. i. 5. 12 was issued in 523,
unlikely that this formality was with its reserve in favour of the
dispensed with- The date of the Goths, and that, notwithstanding
death of Symmachus fell in 525 that reserve, severe measures were
(Marius Avent., sub n.), probably taken in the winter of 523-524 as a
ill the first half. I cannot agree with reprisal for the proceedings against
the transposition in the text of Anon. Albinus and Boethius. It seems
Val proposed by Cessi (op. cit. more probable that there wa.s special
cxxvii.), which, by removing § 88-91 legislation against the Arians in 524,
so as to follow § 84, would make the provoked perhaps by the wealth of
notice of the death of Symmachus, the Arian churcheB (ttXoI’toj' n^va
§ 92, follow immediately that of the KpdxTWj Procopius, ILA. 11.

death of Boethius. 16), and that the persecution began

^ We ]3ossess the edict against without any reference to Italian
heretics of Justin and Justinian (the politics. It must bo emphasised
beginning of it is lost) issued in 527 that in the prosecution of Boethius
(C.J. i. 5. 12 ; ive are able to date there was no anti-Catholic tendency ;
it through the reference in i. 5. 18, § 4), his opponents (Cjiirian, etc.) were
which contains the exce|)tion in Catholics,

XVIII

LAST YEARS OF KING THEODERIC

.1:57:

the end of November, a,d. 525.^ He was received in the eastern
capital with an honourable welcome, and remained there at least
five months. He celebrated Christmas and Easter in St. Sophia,
and successfully vindicated his right to sit on a higher throne
than the Patriarch’s. It is recorded, and perhaps we have no
right to question the statement, that Justin, though long since
duly crowned, caused the Pope to crown him again.^ The mission
succeeded in its principal object. The Emperor agreed to restore
their churches to the Arians and permit them to hold their
services. He refused to allow converted Arians to return to
their old faith, but the main demand of Theoderic was conceded.
Yet when the Pope and his companions returned to Ravenna
in the middle of May ^ their reception was the reverse of that
which successful envoys might expect. They were arrested and
thrown into prison.^ John, who had been ailing when he startedfor
the East, died a few days later (May 18, A.i>. 526) ; ^ his body was
taken, to Rome and interred in St. Peter’s ; there was a popular
demonstration at his funeral and he was regarded as a martyr.

There was a contested election for the succession to the
vacant see. It was probably a contest of strength between the
Italians who were friendly to the Ostrogothic regime and those
who were not. The former succeeded in securing the victory
of their candidate after a struggle of two months, and the election
of Felix IV. (July 12) was a satisfaction to Theoderic, who
had expressly signalised his wishes in the matter to the members
of the Senate.^

^ The determination of this date, Theodorus, members of the great
which is due to Pfeiischifter, depends Decian family, and Agapetus were
(1) on the fact that John was in ex-eonsuls.

Constantinople at Christmas (so that ^ This is mentioned only in Lib.
he could not have started later than pont.

the end of Norember) ; this is kno\’tm ■ ® They must have started immedi-
from the statement of a contemporary ately after Easter day, viuch fell in
jmest Procopius, who, when John 526 on April 19.

arrived, w'as translating a Latin work ^ Lih. pont.^ in custodia eos oymies
into Clrcck (see note to Bonn ed. of adflictos cremauit (tortured). Anon.
Ghron. Pasch, ii. 120); (2) on a : Vai. 93 says only in offema sua etun

letter of Boniface, nota- esse m which Ccssi interprets

rionmif addressed to the Pope before (p. clix.) as pointing to a rigorous
he left Italy in the 4th indiction which surveillance,
began on September 1 (so that he could ® Lib. Pont. xv. kal. Iim.

not have started before September),^ ^ ^ clear from the letter of

Pitra, Analecia noviasima, A. 466, Athalarie to the >Scnate commending
where the addressee is wrongly said that body for having accepted his
tobeJoImIV. Of the senators who grandfather’s choice. Cass. Var.
WGTO with John, Importuntis and viii. 15.

158 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

But the days of Theoderic were numbered. Seven weeks
later he was seized by dysentery, and died on August 30. Before
his death he called together the Goths of his entourage and,
presenting to them his grandson Athalaric as their future king,
enjoined upon them to keep on good terms with the Senate
and the Eoman people, and always to show the becoming respect
to the Emperor.^ Popular legend did not fail to connect his
end with his recent acts of tyranny. It was said that a huge
fish had been served at the royal table, and that to the king's
imagination, tortured by conscience, its head, with long teeth
and wild eyes, assumed the appearance of Symmachus. Theo-
deric took to his bed in terror, and declared to his physician his
remorse for the slaughter of the illustrious senators.‘^

During the last year of his life he had been distressed by the
fate of his sister Amalafrida, the widow of king Trasamimd.^
She had remained in Africa after her husband's death, and was
probably useful to her brother in maintaining the good relations
between the courts of Eavenna and Carthage which her marriage
had inaugurated. But as king Hilderic leaned more and more
towards Constantinople, and fell under the influence of Justinian,
he drew away from the Goths, and his friendship with Theoderic
cooled. Amalafrida, who had her own Gothic entourage in
her adopted country, was accused, rightly or wrongly, of con-
spiring against the king, and was thrown into prison, where she
died, from natural causes it was given out, but it was suspected
that her death was violent. All her Goths were killed. Theo-
deric, if he had lived, would doubtless have attempted to ^yreak
vengeance on Hilderic. After his death his daughter was not
in a position to do more than address to the king of the Vandals
a strong remonstrance.^

^ Jordaiics, Qet. 304. As Justin
had agreed to the concession which
he demanded, and as he had secured
the man he desirc'-d as head of the
Catholic Church, it is perfectly
incredible that four days before his
death Theoderic should have drawn
up a decree empowering tlie Arians
to take possession of Catholic churches,
as Anon. Val. 94 asserts. The state-
ment, which stands alone, has generally
been accepted, but Pfeilschifter is
assuredly right in rejecting it.

“ Procopius, Jordanes, Get. 59.

* In his last years it may be noted
that he had experienced a suecossitvn
of losses, wliich lie must have keenly
felt, by the deaths of Ennodius, a
trusted friend (in 521), his son-in-law
Blutharie (523), his grandson Sigeric
of Burgundy (522; see above, chap,
xiii. § 5) ; and the death of Pot)e
Hormisdas, with, whom he M'a.s always
on cordial terms, was also a blow.

* The letter was written l>y Cassio-
dorus and is preserved ( Cak ix. 1).
The other sources are Procopius,
B,V, ui. 9, 3-5, and Victor Tonn.

XVIII

159

THE REGENCY OF AMALASUNTHA

§ 2. The Regency of Anmlasuntha (a.d. r526'“534)

Theoderic was succeeded by a cMld, Ms grandson Atlialaric,
wbom Ms daiigliter Amalasuntba had borne to Eiitharic, and
Amalasuntha held the reins of government as regent during her
son’s minority. She had received a Eoman education at
Kavelina ; she was brave and intelligent^ and perhaps sincerely
believed in the ideal of blending the Italians and Goths into a
united nation. Even if her convictions and sentiments had
been different, the inherent weakness of a regency would have
forced her to follow her father’s last advice, to keep on good terms
with the Emperor and to conciliate the Senate. The restoration
of the confiscated properties of Boethius and Symmachus to
their children was a pledge of the change. The Roman people
was assured that no difference would be made in the treatment
of Romans and Goths, ^ and when the Senate and people swore
loyalty to the young king, he also took an oath of good govern-
ment to them. The Senate was invited to express its demands
and desires.^ Ambassadors were sent to the Emperor bearing
a letter^ in ivMch he was requested to aid the youth of Athalaric,
and it was suggested that the tomb should be allowed to bury
old hatreds : Claudantur odia cmn sepidtis.

Amalasuntha determined to give her son the education of
Roman princes, and she confided Mm to the care of three civilised

523 (the year of Trasainund’s those worn by Eoman Enmresscs of
deatli). This date has been reason- the time), but no diadem,
ably questioned by Schmidt {GescJi. ^ Cassiodoriis, Var, viii. 3.

der Wand. 122). Tor the letter of ® Ibid. 2. A letter was also

Oassiodorus strongly suggests that addressed to the Catholic clergy,
the queen’s death was quite recent, requesting their prayers for Athalaric
I should be molined to date it early {ib, 8).

in 526, and to connect with it (as A Ibid. 1. This letter is addressed
Schmidt does) Theoderio’s urgency in in the MSS. to Justinian. There is a
completing his naval armamonti and inference in the text to the Einpcrov’s
collecting it at Classis on Juiie 13. old age, and it is simpier to adopt
See F«r. V. 17. 3 Mommsen’s correction lustino than
Qraecus Unjnitei aut Afer imtiUet the explanation attempted by Mar-
(also letters IG, 18, and 19). troye (p. 158-159). It is to be noted

^ Compare the laudatory remarks that the Gothic general Tuluiii (who
of Procopius, E.fr. i. 2. p. 10 ; 4. p. 24. had commanded hi all Thcoderic’s
There is a miniature representation camiiaigns since 504) was created a
of Amalasuntha on the consular Patrician soon after Theoderic’s death,
diptych of Orestes (a.d. 530) which and thus became a member of the
is preserved at South Kensington. Senate (Cass. Var. viii. 9 and 10).

n.Tid iiftTidaTits Tliis act iiiust luivc been sanctioned

158 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

But the clays of Theoderic were numbered. Seven weeks
later he was seized by dysentery, and died on August 30. Before
his death he called together the Goths of his entourage and,
presenting to them his grandson Athalaric as their future king,
enjoined upon them to keep on good terms with the Senate
and the Roman people, and always to show the becoming respect
to the Emperor.^ Popular legend did not fail to connect his
end with his recent acts of tyranny. It was said that a huge
fish had been served at the royal table, and that to the king’s
imagination, tortured by conscience, its head, with long teeth
and wild eyes, assumed the appearance of Symmachus. Theo-
cleric took to his bed in terror, and declared to his physician his
remorse for the slaughter of the illustrious senators.^

During the last year of his life he had been distressed by the
fate of his sister Amalafrida, the widow of king Trasamiind.^
She had remained in Africa after her husband’s death, and was
probably usefu] to her brother in maintaining the good relations
between the courts of Ravenna and Carthage which her marriage
had inaugurated. But as king Hilderic leaned more and more
towards Constantinople, and fell under the influence of Justinian,
he drew away from the Goths, and his friendsliip with Theoderic
cooled. Amalafrida, who had her own Gothic entourage in
her adopted country, was accused, rightly or wrongly, of con-
spiring against the king, and was thrown into prison, where she
died, from natural causes it was given out, but it w^as suspected
that her death was violent. All her Goths were killed. Theo-
deric, if he had lived, ^vould doubtless have attempted to wreak
vengeance on Hilderic. After his death his daughter w^as not
in a position to do more than address to the king of the Vandals
a strong remonstrance.^

^ Jordanes, Get. 304. As Justin. ^ .In his last years it uniy !)e riotod
had agreed to the concession which that he had ex].>erienced a siu'cession
he demanded, and as he Iiad secured of lossef:?, wliicli he must luivo keenly
the man he desired as head of the felt, by the deatlis of Ennodiiis, a
Catholic Church, it is perfectly trusted friend (in 521), his son-in-law
incredible that four days before Ms Euthadc (523), his grands(.)n Sigeric
death Theoderic should have drawn of .Burgundy (522; see above, chap,
up a decree empowering the iVrians xiii. § 5) ; and the death of Pope
to take possession of Chtholic churches, Hormisdas, nith whom he was always
as Anon. Val. 94 asserts. The state- on cordial terms, was also a blow,
ment, which stands alone, has generally ^ The letter was written l>y Cassio-

been accepted, but Pfeilschifter is dorus and is prcseiTcd (Cur. ix. 1).
assuredly right in rejectmg it. The other sources are Procopius,

2 Procopius, ih . ; Jordanes, Get 59. B. F. iii. 9. 3-5, and Victor Tonn.

.■XVIII'

THE REGENCY OF AMALASUNTHA

159

§ 2. The Regency of A'^nalasuntlia (a,d. 526-534)

Theoderic was succeeded by a cliild, Ms grandson Athalaric,
wliom Ms daiigliter Amalasuntlia bad borne to Eiitharic, and
Amalasuntlia .held the reins of government as regent during her
son's minority. She had received a Eoman education at
Eavenna ; she was brave and intelligent/ and perhaps sincerely
believed in the ideal of blending the Italians and Goths into a
united nation. Even if her convictions and sentiments had
been different, the inherent weakness of a regency would have
forced her to follow her father's last advice, to keep on good terms
with the Emperor and to conciliate the Senate. The restoration
of the confiscated properties of Boethius and Syminachus to
their children was a pledge of the change. The Eoman people
was assured that no difference would be made in the treatment
of Eomans and Goths, ^ and when the Senate and people swore
loyalty to the young king, he also took an oath of good govern-
ment to them. The Senate was invited to express its demands
and desires.’^ Ambassadors were sent to the Emperor bearing
a letter^ in which he was requested to aid the youth of Athalaric,
and it was suggested that the tomb should be allowed to bury
old hatreds : ClaiulaMuT ocUa cum ^sepidtis,

Amalasuntha determined to give her son the education of
Eoman princes, and she confided Mm to the care of three civilised

sub 523 (the year of Trasamund’s those worn by Uoman Empresses of
deatli). This date has been reason- the time), but no diadem,
ably questioned by Schmidt {Gesch. ^ Cassiodoriis, Var. viii. 3.

der Wand. 122). For the letter of ® Ibid. 2. A letter was also

Gassiodoriis strongly suggests that addressed to the Catholic clergy,
the queen’s death was quite recent, requesting their prayers for Athalaric
I should be inclined to date it early (ib. 8).

in 526, and to connect with it (as ^ Ibid. 1. This letter is addressed
Schmidt does) Theod eric’s urgency in in the MSS. to Justinian. There is a
completing his naval armament, and reference in the text to the Emjooror’s
collecting it at Classis on June 13, old age, and it is simirler to adopt
See Var. v. 17. 3 non habet q^uod nobis Mommsen’s correction luslino than
Qraecus hnjmtet aut Afer insuUet the explanation attempted by Mar-
(also letters 16, 18, and UA- troye (p. 158-159). It is to be noted

^ Comjjare the laudatory remarks that the Gothic general Tuluin (who
of Procopius, Ji.G. i. 2. 15. 10 ; 4. p. 24. had commanded in all Theoderic’s
There is a miniature representation campaigns since 504) was created a
of Amalasuntha on the consular Patrician soon after Theoderie’s death,
diptych of Orestes (a.b. 530) which and thus became a member of the
is preserved at South Kensington. Senate (Cass. Var. viii. 9 and 10).
She "wears earrings and pendants This act must have been sanctioned
from her head-dress {TTpsTrevdouXia, like by Justin.

160

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chai?.

Gotks, who shared her own views. ", But, the Goths,, as. a whole;
had 110 corupreheiisioix . of the ideal of Italian civilisation at
which sheplike .her, father,, aimed ; ' they believed only in the
art of war ; and .they regarded themselves as victors living in. the
midst of a vanquished population. It outraged their barbarian
sentiments,' that their king .slmiild' receive .an education in
tlie hiimanities. Their indignation was aroused when Athalaric,
chastised by his mother for some fault, was found in tears. They
whispered that the queen wished to do away with her son and
marry again. Some of the leaders of this faction then sought
an audience of Amalasuntha, and protested against the system
of training which she had chosen for the king. A literary
education, they urged, promotes eSeminacy and cowardice ;
children who fear the whip cannot face the sword and spear ;
look at Theoderic, he had no idea of letters ; let Athalaric be
brought up in manly exercises with companions of his own age.
Amalasuntha feigned to be persuaded by arguments with which
she profoundly disagreed. She feared that, if she refused, she
would be deposed from the regency, for there were but few among
the Goths who sympathised with her ideas and policy. Athalaric
was released from the discipline of pedagogues, but even the
enemies of a liberal education xvoulcl hardly have contended that
the new" system was a success. He xvas of a w-eak and degenerate
nature, and the Gothic youths wdth whom he associated soon led
him into precocious debauchery which ruined his health.

As time w^ent on, the dissatisfaction of the Goths wdth the rule
of Amalasuntha increased, and she became aware that a plot
was on foot to overthrow her. She sent three of the most
dangerous men who w-ere engaged in the agitation against her
to different places on the northern frontier, on the pretext of
military duty. Finding that they still carried on their intrigues,
she decided on stronger measures. Fully estimating the hazards
of her position, she took the precaution of providing herself
with a retreat. She WTote to Justinian, asking if he wmiild
receive her in case of need. The Emperor, xvho probably did
not view- with dissatisfaction the situation in Italy, cordially
agreed, and prepared a mansion at D}wrhacliiuni for the queen's
reception on her journey to Constantinople. Thus secured,
Amalasuntha proceeded to the commission of murders, wiiich
it is common to palliate or justify by the plea of political necessity.

xvin THE REGENCY OF AMALASUNTHA 161

Slie sent some devoted Goths to assassinate the three arch-
conspirators. She stowed 40,000 gold pieces in a vessel, which
she sent to Dyrrhachium, directing that it should not be un-
loaded before her arrival When she learned that the murders
had been duly accomplished she recalled the ship and remained'
atEavenna. .

It is important to realise that the Ostrogothic kingdom was
now politically isolated. The system of friendly understandings,
cemented by family alliances, which Theoderic had laboured to
build up among the western Teutonic powers was at the best a
weak guarantee of peace ; after his death it completely broke
down. We have seen how the alliance with the Vandals was
ruptured, and how Amalafrida, Theoderic’s sister, was put to
death by Hilderic,i an injury which Amalasuntha was not in a
position to avenge. The Thuringians, whose queen was her
cousin, were attacked and conquered by the Franks.^ The
Franks were also intent on driving the Visigoths from the corner
of Gaul which they still retained ; the young Idng Amalaric, the
grandson of Theoderic, was killed (a.d. 6.31), and Theudis, who
succeeded him, had enough to do to maintain the possession of
Septimania. From that quarter the Ostrogoths could look for no
support. The power of the Franks became more formidable by
their conquest of Burgundy (a.d. 532-534), ^ and there was always
the danger that the Ostrogothic provinces in Gaul might be
attacked by their insatiable ambition. Thus the Italian regency
would have been forced, even if there had been no internal
difficulties, to conduct itself demurely and re.spectfully towards
the Imperial power to which constitutionally it owed allegiance.

Amalasuntha had one near relative in Italy, her cousin
Theodahad, the son of Amalafrida, queen of the Vandals, by a
first marriage. He was the last person to whom she could
look for help in her difficulties. Theodahad had none of the
soldierly instincts of his race. He had enjoyed a liberal education
and was devoted to the study of the philosophy of Plato. But
he was far from being free from the passions which philosophy
condemns. The ruling trait of his character was cupidity.

^ See above, p. 129.

2 In 529 and following years. See
below, Ohap. XVIIL § 13.'

® Between 529 and 532 Amala-

sunfeba restored to Burgundy districts
between the Isere and the Durance,
which had been taken by Theoderic
in 523. Cass. Var, xi 1. 13- cn
viii, 10. 8. ^

162 HISTORY' OF ■ THE LATER ■.ROMAN: EMPIRE. ' chap..

He liad estates in Tuscany,.,.an'd by encroacbments on the, pro-
perties of Ms neighbours he had gradually acquired a great part
of that province.^ '' He considered it a misfortune to have a
neighbour/’ The Tuscans had complained of his rapacity, and
Amalasmitha had forced Mm to make some restitutions, earning
his imdyiiig hatred. He was not, however, naturally ambitious
of power. His ideal was to spend the last years of his life in
the limiry and society of Constantinople. When he first appears
on the stage of history he takes a step to realise this desire.
Two eastern bishops had come to Home on business connected
with theological doctrine.^ Theodahad entrusted them with a
message to Justinian, proposing to hand over to him his Tuscan
estates in return for a large sum of money, the rank of senator,
and permission to live at Constantinople.

Along with these two bishops, Alexander, an Imperial agent,
had arrived in Italy. His ostensible business was to present
to the regent some trifling complaints of unfriendly conduct.®
At a public audience, Amalasuntha replied to the charges, dwelt
on their triviality, and alleged her services to the Emperor in
allowing Ms fleet to make use of Sicily in the expedition against
the Vandals. But this performance was only intended to deceive
the Goths. Justinian had followed closely events in Italy, and
the real purpose of Alexander’s visit was to conclude a secret
arrangement with the regent. Her position was now more critical
than ever. The premature indulgences of Athalaric had brought
on a decline, and he was not expected to live. On his death her
position, unpopular as she was with the Goths, wwld hardly
be tenable, and she thought of resigning her power into the

^ Tlieoderic had on more than one ® The three complaints were that
occasion to check and reprove his she retained the fortress of Lily-
nephew’s enpiditv. Cass. Far. iv. 39 ; baeum, which belonged to the
V. i2. Emperor; that she gave refuge to

2 Hypatius of Ephesus and De- ten Huns who had deserted from
metrius of Philippi. Cp, Liberatus, the Imperial army; and that in a
Brev. XX. They bore a letter from campaign against the Gepids in the
the Emperor to the Pope, which, with neighbourhood of Sirmium, the Goths
the Pope’s reply, is preserved in had committed hostile acts against
G.J. i. 1. 8. The former is dated Gratiana, a town in Moesia. The
June 6, 533, the latter March 25, claim of the Emperor to Lilybaeum
534. Thus the negotiations with was founded on the circumstance
Amalasuntha and Theodahad are that Theoderic gave it to his sister
dated to 533 -534, and we can when she married Hiideric (see above,
infer that Alexander and the bishops Yol. I. p. 461). Belisarius had de-
left Italy at the end of March manded its surrender at the end of
534. the Vandalic war.

XVIII

THE REGENCY OE AMALASUNTHA

163

hands of the Emperor.^ She communicated her intention to
Alexander, who then returned to Constantinople with the bishops.
On receiving the messages of Amalasuntha and of Theodahad,
Justinian sent a new agent to Italy, Peter of Thessalonica, an
able and persuasive diplomatist.

Meanwhile Athalaric died.^ But now that the critical moment
had come, Amalasuntha, who enjoyed power, could not bear
to part with it, and she committed a fatal blunder. She sent
for her cousin Theodahad, assured him that, in attempting to
curb his rapacity, her intention had been to prevent him from
making himself unpopular, and offered him the title of king,
on condition that she should retain in her own hands the exercise
of government. Dissembling the bitter animosity which he felt
towards her and of which she can have had little conception,
he consented to her terms, and took a solemn oath to fulfil all
she demanded. As soon as he was proclaimed Idng,^ formal
letters were addressed to the Senate, in which Amalasuntha
dwelled upon Theodahad’s literary tastes, and Theodahad
enlarged on Amalasuntha’s wdsdom, |)rofessing his resolve to
[ imitate her.^ Letters were also despatched to Justinian, inform-

1 ing him of what had happened.^

I But after the first h5?pocriticaI formalities, Theodahad lost

1 little time in throwing off the mask. He gathered together the

relatives of the three Goths who had been murdered by Amala-
suntha’s orders ; the Gothic notables who were faithful to her
were slain, and she was herself seized and imprisoned in an island
in Lake Bolsena in Tuscany, which probably belonged to the
king.® She was then forced to write a letter to Justinian, assuring
him that she had suffered no wrong. Theodahad wrote himself

^ If Amalasuntha seriously con-
templated this step, it was, though
defensible theoretically on constitu-
tional grounds, an act of gross
treachery towards her own people.

^ On October 2, 534, according to
Gons, Ital. (Agnellus), in Ohron, min.
i. 333. This accords with the state-
ments of Procopius (-5. i. 4) and
J ordanes ( Mom, 367 ) that Athalaric
reigned eight years. For the coins of
his reign see Wmth, Ooins of the
Vandals, p. xxxiii. An inscription
records that he construeted seats in
the amphitheatre of Ticinum in 528-'

529 (d. n. Atalaricus rex gloriosissimus,
O./.X. V. 6418).

® Gom. Ital, loc. cit. r alia die,
which seems to mean October 3, the
day after Athalaric’ s death.

^ Cassiodorus, Var, x. 3 and 4-
Cassiodorus had been appointed
Praet. Prefect before the end of
Athaiaric’s reign. Cp. Yar. xi. 7.

5 Ih, 1 and 2.

® There are two islands in the
lake, Bisentina and Martana ; the
latter is supposed to be the scene
of the tragedy.

164

HlStOliy OF/tHE -LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap..

to the same effect, and .committed the letters to two senators—
liberiiis, the Praetorian Prefect. of Gaul, and' Opilio— to. hear
to Goiistantiiiople. ,

In the meantime, Peter, the new agent whom the^ .Emperor ,
had selected to continue the secret negotiations, had started.
Travelling by the Egnatian Road, Peter met on his way the Goths
who bore the news of Athalaric’s death and Theodahad’s elevation
to the throne ; and on reaching the port of Aiilon (Valona),
he met Liberius and Opilio, who informed him of the queen’s
captivity. Peter sent a fast messenger to Constantinople and
awaited further orders.^ Justinian immediately wrote a letter
to Amalasimtha, assuring her of his protection, and instructed
Peter to make it clear to Theodahad and the Goths that he was
prepared to support the queen. But the Emperor’s authority
and Ms envoy’s representations did not avail to save Amala-
suntha.^ She was killed-— strangled, it was said, in a bath —
in the lonely island by the relatives of the Goths whom she had
slain, and who had |)ersuaded Theodahad that her death was
necessary to Ms own safety. Goths and Romans were alike
shocked by the fate of Theoderic’s daughter, whose prwate
virtues were acknowledged by all. Peter told Theodahad,
in the name of Justinian, that the crime which had been per-
petrated meant '' a war without truce.” The king pleaded that
it had been committed against his will, but he continued to hold
the assassins in honour.^

^ That Peter’s messenger out-
stripped the Italian ambassadors is
clear from the narrative in Procopius.
They arrived after Justinian had
forwarded his instructions. Liberius
told the whole truth, hut Opilio
sought to defend Theodahad. His-
torians have not observed that there is
an interesting notice of the Exnperor’s
reception of Liberius in Constantine
Porxdi. Re cerhn. L 87 (taken doubt-
less from a work of this same
Peter) : At^ep 6 TrarpUios ml ^rrapxos
PaXXiwr iTfifjLcpdr} ivraiOa irapa OevSd
Tov fh]yd9 Tor&ct.Ji' Kai (rvyKhiiTov

Justinian accorded him the
same honours as were due to a Praet.
Pref. of the East. He afterwards
jjassed into Justinian’s service, and was
Augusta! Prefect of Egypt. Wes shall
meet him again in Sicily and Spain.

2 Jordanes, Get. 306.

® The chronology is beset by serious
difficulties. The fact that Peter met
the envoys of Amalasuntha at Thes-
saloiiica and those (if Theodahad at
Aulon, show's that her captivity began
very soon after Theodahad’s accession
(w'e cannot infer anything from the
vague post aliqiianlitm. tempus of
Jordanes, Get. 306). The only evi-
dence for the date of her murder is
Cons. Ital., loc. cit., wdiere she is said
to have been imprisoned in Lake
Bolsena on April 30, 535. It seems
probable that this may really be the
date of her murder;" it cannot be
that of her imprisonment, for she
was akeady confined in the island
when Theodahad sent his envoys
to Justinian {B.G. i. 4). In this view,
I think, Leuthoid [IJ ntersiichungeyi z\ir
ostgotischen GescJi. 26) is right.
Peter,, who seems to have left Con-

xvin THE REGENCY OF AMALASUNTHA 165

This brief sfcoiy of Amalasuntha’s' tragic end, told by Procopius
ill Ms Eislory of the raises ■some perplexing, questions, wMch
might compel us, even if we 'had no, other evidence, to suspect
the presence of unexplained ,circumstances . in the, background.
It, is difiicult to. understand, Theodahad’s motive in .permitting
the murder, knowing, as he V'cll knew, that such an act would
cause the highest displeasure to Justinian and might lead to war,
•which, as his subsequent policy shows, he desired, almost at any
cost, to avoid. Peter was in Italy at the time, and had been
there for some months before the event. He had been instructed
by the Emperor to champion the cause of Amalasuntha.. How
■was it that he was not only unable to restore her to liberty but
could not even save her life ? When we find that Procopius is
silent as to any efforts of the ambassador in the queen’s behalf,
and even, by an ambiguous sentence, allows his readers to believe
that Peter arrived too late to interfere, there is ground for
suspecting that the tale is only half told.

An explanation is forthcoming from the pen of Procopius
himself. In his Secret History he has added a sinister supplement,
which, he says, it was impossible for me to publish through
fear of the Empress.” ^ According to this story, Theodora
view-ed with alarm the prospect of Amalasuntha seeking refuge
at Constantinople. She feared that this handsome and strong-
minded woman might gain an influence over the Emperor, and
she suborned Peter, by promises of money and office, to procure
the death of the queen of the Goths. On arriving in Italy,
Peter persuaded Theodahad to despatch Amalasuntha. And

stantinople in October, and was by Leiithold [ih. 24), that Procopius
detained for some time at Aulon deliberately falsified facts. But the
to receive instructions, must have 'vvords of Procopius admit. a different
reached Italy before the end of the interpretation. In fact, they pro-

year, or at latest in January. Here perly mean : After the arrival of

the difficulty arises. Procopius says Peter in Italy, it occurred that Amala-
{ib.) luVpoii a.<^)LKoiJi€ifov is 'iTokiav suntha was done away with (clr/>a;'tcr 0 '/ 7 -
’AaaXao-ovvdy ^vvi^r} i^ dr ?'at is aorist, not pluperfect). My owm
cL(j)avLudr)vai. This has been gener- view is that Procopius designedly

ally interpreted to mean, Peter on made his statement ambiguous. He

his arrival in Italj’- found that w^as treading on delicate ground, and
Amalasuntha had already been done he was afraid to force on the reader’s
aw^ay with. IVe should thus be attention the fact that Peter w^as
faced with three alternatives : (I) the some time (about four months) in
rejection of the date April 30; (2) Italy and w'as unable (or unwilling)
the extremely unlikely hypothesis to sa^ the queen’s life,
that Peter remained at Aulon till if.A. 16, acl inil, Cp. above, p.

May ; (3) the hyj)othesis, put forward 34.

166

mSTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE cbaf.

in consequence of tMs lie was promoted to tlie dignity of
Master of Oflices, and won great power and general detesta-
tion ” ^ Tlie credibility of this story bas been doubted,^ but
the evidence in its favour is considerably stronger tban has
been realised.

It may be observed, in tbe first place, that it supplies an
adequate explanation of the conduct of Theodahad in consenting
to the crime. Belying on the influence of the powerful Empress,
he might feel himself safe in complying with the wishes of the
Gothic enemies of Amalasuntha and ignoring the Emperor ^s
threats. And, in the second place, there is nothing incredible
in Theodora’s complicity. There is nothing in her record to
make us suppose that she was incapable of such a crime, and
the motive was surely sufficient. It must be remembered that,
on the scene of public affairs, Amalasuntha w^as, next to Theodora
herself, the most remarkable living woman. She possessed
advantages of person and education, which report might magnify,
and in her eight years of government she had shown strength
of mind and even unscrupulousness. But if in these respects
she might compete with the Empress, her unblemished private
character and her royal birth were advantages which Theodora
could perhaps be hardly expected to forgive. Whatever be the
truth about Theodora’s early career, her origin was of the lowest,
and report, rightly or wrongly, was busy with the licentiousness
of her youth. We can well understand that Theodora would
have been ready to go far in order to prevent the arrival at
Constantinople of a king’s daughter who might gain an influence
over the Emperor and would in any case inevitably challenge
comparisons unfavourable to herself.

The statement of Procopius respecting Theodora’s part in
the drama must be admitted to be perfectly credible, but, in
the absence of corroborative evidence, it would be open to us
to dismiss it as the specious invention of malice. We have.

^ MdXi(jra TdvTo}v Haury’s

correction of ixdp^^v.

“ Gibbon (e. xli.) accepts it in his
text, but throws some doubt on it
in liis note, Hodgkin rejects it as
“ a malicious after-thought of the
revengeful old age of Procopius ”
(in. 720), but does not discuss the

evidence. Diehl {Justmien, 181) oh-
sen^'es : “La chose semble bien
douteuse, qiioique Theodora entre-
tint a ce moment meme avec
Theodat et sa femme une assez
mysterieuse correspoudance et que
Pierre lui fut tout devoue.” Dahn
thought that the story may x^erhaps
be a pure invention [Prohopius, 379).

XVIII T'HE REGENCY OF AMALASUNTHA 167

however, mdependent evidence which corroborates Procopius
in one important particular. It is an essential point in his stor j
that Peter was the devoted agent of Theodora, and that she
procured his appointment as ambassador to Ravenna. This is
fully borne out by letters which Theodahad addressed to the
Empress, when Peter returned to Constantinople after the murder.
In these letters the ambassador is uiiambigiioiisly described as
her confidential envoy. ^ Here too we learn the significant fact
that she enjoined on Theodahad that, if he made any request
to the Emperor, he should first submit it to her.^ Moreover,
in a letter of Theodahad’s wife Gudeliva to Theodora, there is
a mysterious passage which, in the light of what Procopius
tells us, can be most easily explained as a veiled reference to the
crime. '' While it is not seemly,” wrote Gudeliva, that there
should be any discord between the Roman realms, an affair
has occurred of such a kind as fitly to render us dearer to you.” ^
In a letter despatched immediately after the murder, this sentence
bears an ominous significance.

The story of Procopius imjfiies that the secret intrigues were
laiown to a wide circle. Even if that were not so, he might
have received information from Antonina, who was in Theodora’s
confidence, or from Peter himself . We must remember too that
Theodahad, when he abandoned all thoughts of peace, had no
motive to conceal the guilty intervention of Theodora. The
conclusion that she did intervene and that Peter, acting by her
orders, promoted the murder of Amalasiintha by hints and
indirections, while he was ostensibly, in obedience to Justinian,
acting in the interests of the queen, seems to be warranted by
the evidence considered as a whole. This evidence would, of
course, be far from sufficient to procure her conviction in a legal
court. No public prosecutor could act on it. But where a
jury would not be justified in convicting, public opinion is
frequently justified in judging that a charge is true.

^ Cassiodorus, F<xr. X. 20 ante sensibus ingeramus.

est etiam gatidio meo quod tahm viriim ® Ib. 21 emersit tnmen et qiiaUtas rei,
vestra serenitas destinavif ; ib. 23 quae nos efficere car lores vestrae debeat
legatum v&sirum ... Petrum ... aequitati. It must be remembered
vestris obsequiis mhaerentem. that the interests of Gudeliva were

also involved. Her position as wife

^ Ib. 20 hortamini eum ut quic- oi the king, with Amalasuntha as
qiiid exiwMndurn a triuinpJiali princi'pe the queen, would have been iiitoler-
domno iiigali vestro credimus^ vestris^^^^ ^

168 HISTOE y/OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

§ 3. The Reign of TJieodahad, and Outbreak of Hostilities
(A.D. 535-636)

Soon after the crime Peter returned to Constantinople.
He bore letters from Theodahad and his wife to Justinian and
Theodora ; and he was to be followed presently by an Italian
ecclesiastic, perhaps Pope Agapetus himself.^ The object of
Theodahad was to avert hostilities, and it is clear that he relied,
above all, on the influence of Theodora. It is said that he forced
the Roman senators to address Justinian in behalf of peace,
by threatening to slay them, with their wives and children, if
they refused. And we possess a letter of the Senate, drawn up
by the Praetorian Prefect Cassiodorus, professing deep affection
for the Amal ruler, nourished at the breasts of Rome, and implor-
ing the Emperor to keep the peace. But the king’s hopes of
a peaceful settlement were vain. The Emperor immediately
prepared for war. The idea of restoring the Imperial power in
Italy had probably been long in his mind, his diplomacy had been
occupied with it during the past year, and in a law issued six
weeks before the murder of the queen he seems to allude to the

^ If we read the six letters in Cass.
Far. X, 19-24 together, it appears
unquestionable that they were de-
spatched about the same time.
19 (Theod. to Justinian), 20 (Theod.
to Theodora), 21 (Giideliva to Theo-
dora) were entrusted to Peter ; 22
(Theod. to Justinian), 23 (Theod. to
Theodoi’a), 24 (Gudoliva to Theodora)
were to be committed to the unnamed
ecciesiastic, -who is referred to in the
same terms, in five of the letters, as
ilium virum veuerabilem. It is obvious
from the tenor that hostilities had
not yet begun, and that Theodahad’s
object in WTiting was to avert them.
Further, 19 was the first communi-
cation addressed him to the
Emperor since Peter’s arrival early
in o35, as is clear from the first
sentence, in which he thanks Justinian
for congratulating him on his eleva-
tion {gratias divinitati referimus quod
prov^tum nostrum dementiae vestrae
(jratissimum esse dedarastis). We
may therefore confidently date these
documents to summer 53o. Another
document also belongs here, xi. 13,
an appeal of the Poman Senate to

preserve peace. The tenor seems
to jjoint to a date before the outbreak
of war, and the statement that the
letter Avouid be delivered per ilium
virum venerabilem legatimi piissinii
regis 7iosfri seems conclusive. We
may naturally connect this letter
AYith the record found only in Libe-
ratus, Brev. 21, that Theodahad com-
pelled the Senate by threats to make
such an appeal. This vlr renerabilis
is supposed by some to have been
Rusticus, who afterwards accom-
panied Peter to Constantinople in
536 (see below% p. 173 ; cp. Dahn.
Kon* der Oerm. ii. 203). Lcutbold,
Korbs, and others have attempted
to prove that Pope Agapetus is meant,
and that the letters -were wTitton and
sent ill February 536. But the tenor
of the letters is quite inappropriate
to the situation then. The important
passage is 19. 4, 5, and 1 am in-
dined to think that Theodahad means
he will send the Pope, not with
Peter, but later on, as his own
envoy. The Pope, hoivever, did not
start till a much later date (see beloiv,
p. 172).

XVIII

169

outbreak of hostilities

Italian enterprise.^ If TKeodahad were willing to abdicate
and give tJie Emperor peaceful possession, well and good, but
tbe only alternative was war. On tHs Justinian was fully
resolved, and Peter, wbo returned to Italy during tbe
summer (a.d. 535), must liave been tbe bearer of tbis ultimatum.
In tbe meantime Justinian pushed on tbe preparations for
war.^ .

Tbe war against tbe Gotbs was begun in a very difierent wmy
from tbe war against tbe Vandals. The Emperor had taken bis
subjects into bis confidence when be prepared tbe African
expedition ; all tbe world knew that be was committed to tbe
subjugation of Africa. But tbe outbreak of hostilities, which
was to lead to tbe subjugation of Italy, was carefully concealed
so long as concealment was possible ; and tbe first steps were
so contrived as not to commit the government to immediate
operations on an extensive scale, if tbe task should appear too
formidable. It is probable that Justinian was still waiting on
events in Italy, and calculating that Tbeodabad, who was devoid
of military spirit and capacity, would on tbe first symptoms of
danger yield to all bis demands. It was a calculation in wbicb
too little accomit was taken of tbe feelings of tbe Ostrogotliic
people.

Tbe first operations in tbe war would indeed have been
dictated, in any case, by geographical circumstances. To occupy
the Gothic province of Dalmatia, wbicb was accessible by land,
and that of Sicily, which was the most easily accessible by sea,
were obviously, for a power wbicb commanded tbe sea, the first

^ Justinian, Fov. 6 (Marcli 6, 535) is quite clear; it was pointed out by
ad init : ea quae s unt fir ma Imhebimus Eckhardt and Leutlioid and lias been

et quae nondmn hactenus venerimt estabiisbed by Korbs. Thus year

adqiiirimus. i=end of June 535 to end of June

Procopius, B,G. i. 5. 1, “as soon 536. The system has been mis-

as he learned what had happened to understood because, in noting the

Amalasuntlia, being in the ninth end of each year, Procopius uses the
year of his reign, he entered upon formula “the winter was over and
war” (the ninth regnal ji’ear began the 1st (2nd, etc.) year of the war
A];)ril 1, 535). Justinian must have came to an end,” in imitation of
heard the news by the end of May, Thucydides. The inference that the
and Belisarius may have sailed at hew year began with the sjuing
the end of June. Tiis sailing marked equinox was natural, but is incon-
the beginning of the war, and thus sistent with the narrative. The end
we can understand (cp. Korbs, of the wniiter and the end of the year
U liter suelmngen, p. 60) why the of war are not coincident, and the
years of the war as reckoned by former is only introduced to remind
Procopius run from summer solstice the reader of Thucydides (Korbs,
to summer solstice. This reckoning 56 5g^.).

170 FIISTORY OF; TEE LATER ROM AN EMPIRE C'Ekp.

tilings to be clone. The possession of these two provinces would
pro-\dde the bases for the conquest of Italy. Mundus, the loyal
Gepid, Blaster of Soldiers in lUyricum, led the forces against
Dalmatia. The resistance there seems to have been weak. He
defeated the Goths and occupied Salona.^

The conqueror of Africa was marked out for the command
of the overseas expedition, and the full powers of an imperator
were again conferred upon him.‘^ But the army which was
entrusted to him was hardly half as strong as that which he had
led against the Vandals. It consisted of 4000 legionaries and
Federates ; a special division of 3000 Isaurians under Eunes ;
200 Huns, 300 Moors ; and the armed retainers of Belisarius,
who may have amounted to several hundreds. Thus the total
strength was about 8000. The principal generals were
Constantine and Bessas, both Thracians; and the Iberian
prince Peranius.^ Belisarius was accompanied by his stepson
Photius, still a stripling, but strong and intelligent beyond
his age.

The purpose of the expedition was kept secret. It was given
out that the destination of the fleet was Carthage, and no one
had any idea that its sailing was the first step in a new enterprise.
Belisarius was instructed that on landing in Sicily he should
still pretend to be on his way to Africa, and should do nothing
until he had discovered whether the. island could be subjugated
without trouble. This would evidently depend on the disposition
of the Sicilians and the strength of the Gothic garrisons. If it
appeared that he was likely to meet with a serious resistance, he
was to proceed to Africa as if no other intention had been enter-
tained. He was to run no risks with his small army. This
cautious plan of action shows that the Emperor was not yet
prepared to commit himself to an Italian campaign. The
operations of Belisarius and Mimdus were designed, in the first
instance, as auxiliary to the Imperial diplomacy.

If war could not be avoided, Justinian calculated upon obtain-
ing some aid from beyond the Alps. He sent an embassy to
the kings of the Franks, urging that it was their interest as a
Catholic power to co-operate with him against the Arian Goths,

^ Perhaps in August or September K-pdrujp (Procopius, B.G. i. 5. 4. See
^ above, p. 127).

^ He is named a (rrparrjyb^ aiJro- ® Son of king Gurgen.

XVIII

and as lie supported Ms arguments by gold, he secured unreserved
promises of assistance.^

Belisariiis disembarked at Catane and he fomid Ms work easier
than he could well have anticipated. Having seized Catane,
he occupied Syracuse, and from the summary statement which
has come down it would almost seem that no resistance was offered
anywhere and that no military operations were necessary, except
at Panormus. Here the fortifications were strong, and the
Gothic garrison, which was probably larger than in the other
cities, refused to surrender. The Imperial fleet sailed into the
harbour, which was unfortified. The masts of the ships over-
topped the w^alls of the town, and Belisarius conceived the device
of hoisting boats, full of soldiers, to the tops of the masts, so that
they could shoot down upon the defenders. To this menace the
Goths, who must have been half-hearted in their resistance,
immediately yielded. The restoration of Roman rule in the
island was completed before the end of December. Belisarius
was one of the consuls of the year, and on December 31 he
was able to enter Syracuse and formally lay down his office.
The coincidence seemed to his contemporaries a signal favour
of fortune.

The ease with which Sicily was reduced shows that the Sicilians
were ready to exchange the yoke of Ravenna for that of New
Rome, and that there were not large Gothic forces in the island.
It may be observed that it would have been far more difficult
for a small garrison, in those days, to hold a town of considerable
size against a foe, in spite of the wishes of the inhabitants, than
in modern times. A slender force, armed with sword and spear,
could not defy a numerous populace, as they might if they were
supplied with firearms.

In the meantime communications had passed between
Rome and Constantinople.^ Alarmed by the operations in

^ The Merovingian kingdom was Far. x. 14 and 18, cp. xii. 18 and 19),
now divided among three rulers, and that it was then that (as Wroth
Chlotachar and Ghildeberfc, sons of saw) he issued the fine bronze coins
Chlodwig, and their nephew Theo- which bear his bust, vdth Dti Tkeo-
debert. It was Theodebert who was dahatus rex on the obverse, and
the leading spirit in the Italian policy Victoria Prmcipum on the reverse,
of the Franks (see below, § 8). On these coins the head is neither

It is highly iwobable that Theo- bare nor bound with a diadem, but
dahad was at Rome during the whole wearing a closed crovm ornamented
winter 535-536, and directed the with jewels and two stars. His robe
negotiations from there (Cassiodorus, is also richly ornamented with jewels

172 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EM char

Dalmatia Sicily, king . TKeodahad made a , new effort to
persuade tlie Emperor to desist from Ms purpose* He induced
Pope Agapetus to undertake the office of ambassador to Gon-
staiitiiiople (early winter, a.d. 535)d The appeal did not avail
We are not told low the Pope discharged the duties of a mission
which he seems to have undertaken reluctantly, but he soon
became absorbed in the ecclesiastical controversies of Con-
stantinople, where he remained till his death (April 22, 536).
Meanwhile the successes of Mundus and Belisarius increased the
fears of Theodahad, and the fall of Panormus seems to have
been decisive. The Imperial envoy Peter, who had returned
from Constantiiiople to Rome, was able to take advantage of
the completion of the conquest of Sicily to persuade the vacillating
king to attempt to come to terms with Ms master.^ Theodahad’s
fears made him amenable, and he handed to Peter a letter in
which he offered to resign Sicily and to submit to a number of
capitulations, which would clearly establish and confirm the
Emperor’s oveiiordsMp.^ Peter set out, but he had only reached

and a cross. The hair is cut short;
the face beardless, but with a mous-
tache such as has been seen already
on the portrait coins of Odovacar
and Theoderic ” : Wroth {Goins of
Vandals, etc., p. xxxiv), who sees no
reason not to regard it as a true
portrait, and suggests that it should
be connected with Cassiodorus, Var.
yi. 7 ut Jiffum viiltus nostri metallis
nsiiaUbus imprmatur, etc. The other
(Ravennate) coinage of Theodahad
is of the ordinary type.

^ Liberatus, Brev, 21, ipsi
et senatui Romano interminatur non
solum smatores sed et itxores et filios
filiasque eonwi gladio se mteremhirum
nisi eglssent apud imperatorem xit
desiinahim exercHum simm de Italia
submoveret (Italia is used in its i)oliti-
cal sense, including SicHy). The
date 535 is supplied by Go7it Mar-
Cellini, s.a. It has generally been
sui)posed that Agapetus was sent
in 536, on account of a passage in
the life of this Pope in Lib. pmik
p. 287 ambulavit Constantinopolim
X hi. Mai., where Clinton read x kal.
Mari. —Teh. 21, which is taken to
be the date of his arrival at Con-
stantinople, though it would naturally
be that of his departure from Rome.

Now as X hal. MaL, April 22, is the
date of the Pope’s death, Duchesne
is certainly right in regarding the
date as an interpolation. Against
the emendation it may further be
urged that Eeb. 21-March 13, on
which day Agapetus consecrated the
Patriarch Menas, is too short a
time for the proceedings jjrelimmary
to this ecclesiastical victory. Pinaily,
the mission of the Pope after the
despatch of Peter with the two
letters is unintelligible. These objec-
tions are conclusive. The view that,
Agapetus accompanied Peter is quite
untenable. Agapetus was in Italy
on Sept. 9 (see his letters in Mansi,
viii. 848, 850} and as late as Oct. 15,
if the date of tlie letter to Justinian
{ib. 850) is correct. Ho may have
started iix November or December.

From the order of the narrative
in Procopius, i. 6 ad init., it is natural
to infer that Peter’s interviews with
the king were later than Dec. 31, 535.
The inference, however, is not quite
certain, for raPra {gttu oi ravra
UHpos cjMaOev) might mean loosely
the progress of Belisarius in Sicily.

® Theodahad undertook (1) to send
to the Emperor yearly a gold crown
weighing 300 lbs. ; (2) to furnish

XVIII

THEODAHAD\S NEGOTIATIONS

173

Albano when lie was recalled. Tlieodahad’s craven spirit was
tortured by the fear that his terms would be rejected, and he
had decided to seek Peter’s advice. The historian Procopius
records a curious conversation between the king and the
ambassador.^ ‘^ Suppose my terms do not satisfy Justinian,
what will happen 1 ” asked the Idng. You will have to fight,”
said Peter. / Is that fair, ' my dear^ ambassador ? ” Why
not ? ” replied Peter ; it is fair that every man should be true
to his own character.” ''What do you mean *? ” "Your
interest is philosophy,” said Peter, " while Justinian’s is to be
a good Roman Emperor. Observe the difference. It could
never be seemly for a philosopher to cause death to men, and
in such numbers ; especially for a Platonist, whose hands should
be pine of blood. Whereas it is natural that an Emperor should
seek to recover territory which of old belongs to his dominion.”
Theodahad then swore, in Peter’s presence, and caused queen
Gudeiiva to swear likewise, that he would deliver Italy over
to Justinian, in case his first proposals were rejected. He wrote
a letter to this effect, stipulating only that lands producing
a yearly revenue of 1200 lbs. of gold should be secured to
him ; but he made Peter promise by oath that he would first
deliver the previous letter, and only produce the second in case
the first proved unacceptable. In agreeing to this arrangement,
Peter may seem to have had a strange idea of the duties of an
ambassador, but we may take it for granted that he was perfectly
certain that the compromise offered in the first communication
would be rejected.^ Rejected it was ; the second letter was
presented, and the Emperor was highly pleased. Peter was
sent once more to Italy, along with another agent, to confirm
the agreement, and to arrange that the estates of the pr/fn*-
wmnnm should be assigned to Theodahad’s use.^ Instructions

300 Gbthie soldiers, when required ; that this conversation was invented
(3) not to put to death, or confiscate by the historian. I take it as an
the property of, any senator or cleric, important indication that Procopius
without the Emperor’s consent ; (4) was personally acquainted with Peter,
not to confer the patrician or the and that Peter was his source for
senatorial dignity, except with the the diplomatic history of the years
same consent; (o) not to suffer his 534-536.

name to be acclaimed before that of ® Along with Peter, Theodahad
the Emperor, in the circus or theatre t sent Rusticus, an ecclesiastic, probably
(6) to allow no statue to be sot up to a bishop (cp. Leuthold, Unter-
himself alone, without a statue of the smlmngen, p. 40).

Emperor standing on the right. in Tuscany. B.G, i.

^ There seems no reason to suj)pose 6. 26, cp. 4. 1.

174 HISTOEY 'OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

were sent to Belisarius, who was still in Sicily, to be prepared
to take possession of the royal palaces and assume the control
of Italy.

When the ambassadors arrived they found Theodahad no
longer in the same mood. Things in the meantime had been
occurring in Dalmatia, where a considerable Gothic army had
arrived to recover the province. Maurice, the son of Miindus,
went out with a small force to reconnoitre, and fell in a san-
guinary skirmish. His father, excited by grief and anger, im-
mediately marched against the Goths, and almost annihilated
their forces, but in the heat of a rash pursuit was mortally
wounded.^ His death rendered the victory equivalent to a
defeat. The Imperial army, in which it seems that there was
none competent to take his place, withdrew from Dalmatia.
The field was left to the Goths, but they too had lost their
commander, and they did not at first venture to occupy Salona,
where the Eoman population was not friendly.

The news of these events elated Theodahad, whose unstable
mind was vacillating between fear of war and the pleasures
of royalty. When the Imperial ambassadors arrived, full
of confidence and disregardful of his oath, he refused to fulfil
his contract. The Gothic notables, to whom Justinian had
sent a conciliatory letter, supported him in his refusal, and
he went so far as to detain the ambassadors in close con-
finement.

On learning what had occurred the Emperor appointed
Constantian, his Count of the Stable, to lead the Illyrian army
to recover Dalmatia, and sent orders to Belisarius to invade
Italy. The task of Constantian -was easily enough accomplished.
He transported his troops by sea from Dyrrhachium to Epi-
daurus (Eagusa), and the Goths, who had meanwhile seized
Salona, believing that they could not defend it, withdrew towards
Scardona. Marching to Salona, Constantian rebuilt parts of

^ The deaths of Mundus and his uperistal in one MS., fpepiorracri in
son seemed to the Italians to supply another. The Greek version, given
the interpretation of a Sibylline by Procopins, Sr
oracle, which had evidently been 6 rip ^Xe? 7 -ai, points

in their minds since the conquest of to the future of pereo. Braun and
the Vandals. The Latin words, as Haury read mm mto peribU, Corn-
handed dowii in the MSS. of Pro- -papoetti penbunL Penef, a form which
copius {B.G. i. 7, p. 33), present some occurs in Gorippus, would be nearer
difficulty. Africa capta mundus cum (cp. Bury, B.Z. sv. 46).
nat is quite clear, but is follovred by

XVIII

175

SIEGE OF HAPLES

tlie walls, whicli were in disrepair, and the GotHc army then
retired to Ravenna.^

Siege of Naples .and Accession of Witigis
(A.I). 536 )

Belisariiis was preparing to transport his army to Italy when
he was summoned to Africa to suppress the mihtary mutiny,
with which Solomon was unable to cope (last days of March). ^
On his return, leaving garrisons in Syracuse and Panormus, he
crossed the straits and landed at Rhegium. The defence of the
straits was in the hands of Evermud, son-in-law of the king.
His forces were probably insignificant ; he deserted to Beli-
sarius, was sent to Constantinople, and rewarded by the patrician
dignity. The general advanced by the coast road to Naples,
accompanied by the fleet, and he met with no opposition.

He encamped before Naples, and received a deputation of
citizens, who implored him not to press them to surrender ;
Naples is a place of no importance, they said, let him pass on
and take Rome. The general, observing that he had not asked
them for advice, promised that the Gothic garrison would be
allowed to depart unharmed, and he privately promised large
rewards to Stephen, the head of the deputation, if he could
prevail upon the citizens to surrender. A meeting was held,
and two influential orators, Pastor and Asclepiodotus, who were
loyal to the Gothic interest, induced the citizens to put forward
demands which they were sure would not be granted. But
Belisarius agreed to everything. Then Pastor and his fellow in
public harangues urged that the general was not in a position
to guarantee their security, and that the city was too strong to
be taken. This view was supported by the Jews, who, favoured
by Theoderic’s policy, were deeply attached to Gothic rule, and
it carried the day.

^ The loss of Dalmatia may be must have started for Carthage in
placed in March 536 ; the recovery the first days of April. He cannot
in May-June. Peter must have have been back in Sicily before May,
returned to Italy by the beginning and he did not cross to. Italy before
of April Procopius notes the end the end of June (the second year of
of the first year of the war, after the war had already begun, Procopius,
the recovery of Dalmatia (i. 7 ad H.lr. i. 7. 37 and 8. 1). He did not
fin.). reach Haples till October (winter was

See above, p. 143. Belisarius approaching, ^6. 9, 9).

176 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Belisariiis decided to besiege tbe place, but it proved a more
difficult operation than he had expected. He cut the aqueduct,
but this caused little inconvenience, as the town had good wells.
The besiegers had no points of vantage from which they could
conduct the attack. Ancient Naples included within its walls
only a small portion of the modern city. It corresponded to a
rectangular area of about 1000 by 800 yards, in which the church
of San Lorenzo would be close to the centre. But the ground
must have been distinctly higher than the modern level, to
give the besieged the advantages which they possessed.^ Having
w-asted some weeks and incurred serious losses in men, Belisarius,
impatient to advance against Rome and meet Tlieodahad,
determined to abandon the siege. But the luck which had
signally favoured him hitherto -was again with him. He had
given orders to the army to prepare for departure, when a curious
Isaurian, climbing into the broken aqueduct in order to inspect
its construction, discovered that, near the walls, the channel had
been pierced through solid rock, and that the aperture was still
open, too narrow to admit a man in armour, but capable of being
enlarged. Belisarius acted promptly. Files were employed to
enlarge the opening, so as to make no noise. But before making
use of this means of entering the city, the general gave the Nea-
politans another chance to avoid bloodshed and the horrors of
a sack. He summoned Stephen to his camp, assured him that
it was now impossible that the city should not fall into his hands,
and implored him to persuade his fellow-citizens to capitulate
and avoid the miseries which would befall them. Stefjhen
returned in tears, but the people refused to listen. They were
convinced that the appeal of Belisarius was merely a ruse.

Six hundred men crept through the aqueduct at night, slew
the sentinels on the northern wall, and enabled the Eoman
troops who were waiting below with scaling-ladders to ascend
on the battlements. The horrors which Belisarius had anti-
cipated ensued, and the Huns particularly distinguished them-
selves in the work of murder and plunder. At length the general
succeeded in gathering the troops together and staying the
carnage. Swords were sheathed and captives were released.
Eight hundred Goths who were taken were well treated. The
Neapolitans turned with anger against the two demagogues
^ Hodgkin, iv. 49 sqq.

xvin

SIEGE OF NAPLES

177

whom they held responsible for all that had befallen them.
They slew Asclepiodotns . they found Pastor already dead,,
stricken by apoplexy when he knew., that the city was ,taken.^ '
The people of Naples had confidently expected that 'king
Theodahad would have sent an army to relieve their city. Tie
seems to have been paralysed by fear ; he took no measures
for the defence of his Idngdom or of any part of it. Disgusted
with his inactivity, the Goths of Eome and the province of
Campania decided, after the fall of Naples, to depose him and
elect a leader of military experience. They met at Eegata in
the Pomptine marshes,^ and, as there was no suitable member
of the royal family of the Amals, their choice fell on Witigis,
a man of undistinguished birth, who had earned some repute
in the campaigns against the Gepids. He was acclaimed king
(November, a.d. 536),^ and Cassiodorus, whose impartial pen was
prepared to serve him, as it had served Theoderic and Amala-
siintha, and as it had served Theodahad, announced to all the
Goths the election of one not chosen, like Theodahad, in the
recesses of a royal bedchamber, but in the expanse of the bound-
less Campagna;^ of one who owed his dignity first to Divine
grace, but secondly to the free judgment of the people ; of one
who knew the brave men in his army by comradeship, having

^ Naples probably fell early in
November. The siege lasted twenty
days. We must allow some time
for the march to Rome, which was
reached on Dec. 9.

^ Regata (not Regeta) was 280
stades from Rome, near the Decen-
novian canal, which drained the
marshes and reached the sea at
Terracina. The text of Procopius
(i. 11) in this passage equates 19 miles
with IIS stades {rpLo-KaideKa Kal
eKarov). The reading cannot be
sound. Procopius reckoned 7 stades
to a mile (see above, p. 132), We
should probably read rpecs Kal
TpidKoyra {)\y' instead oi ly'), ^y~ = 19.
See Haury, xv. 297, who con-
jectures that Regata is a later name
for Forum Appii.

® Procopius, i,b. Jordanes, Mom,
372, Get 310. The date of the
accession of Witigis cannot have been
prior to October. For Theodahad, who
was 2311 1 to death a few days after-
wards, was in the third year of his
VOL. TT

reign {B.G. i. 11), which began not
earlier than October 3. There is no
reason for rejecting the record in
Com, Ital, {loc, cit.) that he was
slain memo ^nd thus we

obtain the end of November for the
elevation of Witigis. This accords
with the probable date of the siege
of Najiles (see above, p. VII, n, 1).
The date usually assigned is August
(so Clinton, Hodgkin, Martroye, etc.),
on the testimony of a passage hi Lib,
pont, Silverius, p. 290, where it is
stated that two months after the
ordination of Pojie Silverius (June 20)
Theodahad was killed and Witigis
elected. As this contradicts ail the
other evidence, w^e must reject it.
I have little doubt that the text
{post mensm vero ii.) offers an instance
of the very common numerical
confusion of ii with u. Lent hold
{op. cit. AS), who is right in his view
of the olironoiogy, makes a subtle
and unsatisfactory attempt to explain
the wrong date in this text.

^ In campie late patenUbus.

178

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

stood slioulder to shoulder with them in the day of battle. ’’ ^
The event proved that the choice of the Goths was un-
discerning. Witigis was a respectable soldier, and would
have been a valuable leader of a division under an able
commander, but he possessed none of the higher qualities
demanded in one who was called to lead a nation against a
formidable invader. ' .

Theodahad, who had hitherto been residing at Eome, fled
incontinently to Eavenna. Witigis decided that he must die,
and sent a certain Optaris to bring him alive or dead. Optaris
was selected because he had a personal grudge against Theodahad.
Travelling night and day without a pause, he overtook the
fugitive, flmig him on the ground, and butchered him like a
sacrificial victim.

The new king immediately marched to Eom.e and held a
council. Everything depended on the plan of campaign that
was now formed. The Goths were menaced by two dangers,
the imminent advance of Belisarius from the south, and the
hostile attitude of the Franks in the north. The main forces
of the Goths were stationed in the northern frontier provinces,
in Provence and Venetia. Witigis proposed, and the proposal
was accepted, first of all to deal with the Franks, and then to
take the field against Belisarius with all the forces of the kingdom.
It is safe to say that this plan of postponing the encounter
with the most dangerous enemy was unwise.^ The best chance
of the Goths would have been to hurry the main part of their
troops from the north, and either join battle with the Imperial
army before it reached Eome, or else hold Eome strongly and
force Belisarius to undertake a siege which would be long and
difficult. In the meantime an envoy could be sent to negotiate
with the Franks. The place of Witigis himself was at Eome,
the threatened point, and he committed a fatal blunder when
he started for Eavenna “ to make arrangements for the war,’’
He left a garrison of 4000 men in Eome, under Leuderis, ex-
tracted an oath of fidelity from Silverius, the Pope,^ and from

^ Cassiodoms, x. 31 {Hodgkin’s
paraphrase, iii. 74).

2 Compare the remarks of Hodgkin,
iv. 76.

® Siiverius (son of a previous Pope,
Hormisdas) succeeded Agapetus in

June 536. It is said that he was
imposed on the electors by Theoda-
had (Lib. 2 iontf loc. ciL)^ but this
may be only an invention. Cp.
Liboratus, Brev, c. 22; Hodgkin, iv.
92.

XVIII

ACCESSION OF WITIGIS

170

the Senate and people, and took a nunifeer of senators with
him, as hostages.

At Eavenna, Witigis married, ■against her will, Matasmitha,
the sister of Athalaric, i.rL order to link hiinself with the dynasty
of Theocleric ; and the wedding was celebrated in a florid oration
by Cassiodorus.^ He then proceeded to negotiate with the
Franks. We saw how they had been induced by Justinian to
promise their co-operation. But Theodahad had made them
an attractive ofler. He proposed to hand over to them the
Ostrogothic territory in Gaul, along with 2000 lbs. of gold,
in return for their engagement to assist him in the -war.
He died before the transaction was concluded. Witigis saw
that the best thing to be done was to carry out this arrange-
ment. The Frank kings consented, but, as they did not Wish
openly to break their compact with Justinian, they promised
secretly to send as auxiliaries not Franks, but men of their
tributary peoples.’’ 2

At the same time a last attempt was made to come to terms
with the Emperor. It was plausible to argue that, as the
murder of Amalasiintha had been the alleged reason for invading
Italy, the cause for war was removed by the piinislinient of
Theodahad and the elevation of Matasuntha to the throne.
What more could the Goths do ? Witigis wrote to Justinian
to this effect,^ and likevdse to the Master of Offices urging him
to work for peace.*^ As to these negotiations we possess only
the documents drawn up at Eavenna, and have no information
as to the Emperor’s reply. We may conjecture that he offered
Witigis the simjjle alternative between war and submission.

In the meantime Belisarius had left Naples and was marching

^ Fragments have been preserved
and, edited by Traube, are included
in Mf)mmsen’s ed. of the Fariae, p.
473 sqq. The orator refers con-
tomptuonsly to the effeminate training
of Athalaric by his mother, and
enlarges on the military career a^id
prowess of Witigis. An elaborate
description of the sumptuous pomp
of the nuptials follows. There are
coins with the monogram of Mata-
suntha, and they have been generally
attributed to the reign of Witigis, but
for another view see below, j>. 25A
The coinage of Witigis is of the
ordinary type,

2 Procopius says that the three
Frank kings divided the money and
the land (B.QI i. 13. 27). But they
did not consider their title secure
until the land was formally ceded by
the Emperor, and Justinian deemed
it wise to agree (iii. 33. 3).

® Gassiodorus, Var, x. 32. "Witigis
at the same time appealed to the
Catholic bishops of Italy to pray for
peace, and wrote to the Praet. Prefect
of Illyricum asking Mm to help his
ambassadors at Thessaioniea on their
journey, lb. 34, 35.

^ lb. 33.

iSO HISTORY. OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Borthward. Tlie Eomans, warned by tbe experiences of Naples,
and urged by tlie Pope, wbo bad no scruples in brealdng his
oath to Witigis, sent :a messenger inviting ' him to come. He
had placed small garrisons in Naples and Cumae, the only forts
ill Campania, and marching by the Via Latina he entered Eome
on December 9, a.d. 536,^ by the Porta Asinaria, close to the
Basilica of the Lateran.^ On the same day the Gothic garrison
discreetly withdrew by the Porta Flaminia. Their leader,
Leuderis, remained, and was sent to the Emperor with the keys
of the city gates.

§ 5. Siege of Rome (a.d, 537-538)

The Eomans soon learned to their deep chagrin that it was
the intention of Belisarius to remain in their city and expose
it to the hardships of a siege. With the small forces at his
disposal, this was the only prudent course open to him. Taking
up his quarters in the Domus Pinciana, on the Pincian Hill, in
the extreme north of the city, the general immediately set about
strengthening the fortifications. The great walls of Aurelian,
which encompassed the cit)?- in a circuit of about twelve miles,
had been repaired more than a hundred years ago, in the reign
of Honorius, and recently by Theoderic. But Belisarius found
many dilapidations to make good, and he added some new
fortifications. A wide ditch wms dug on the outer side. The
wall, as originaily constructed, w-as well adapted for defence.
A special feature was a covered wrny running round the inside
of the wall to facilitate the passage of troops from one point
to another. Some portions of this arched gallerj?- still remain.^
Considering the vicissitudes through which Rome subsequently
passed in a period of thirteen hundred years, the walls which the
army of Belisarius defended are wonderfully preserved.^

At the same time measures were taken to supply the city
with stores of grain imported from Sicily. But Belisarius
appears not to have expected that Rome would be attacked by

^ Tliere is a lacuna in the text of ^ A vSummary enumeration of the
Procopius (i. 14. 14), but it can he towers, battlements, and loopholes,
supplied from Evagrius, HR, iv. 19, from the Porta Elaininia to the Porta
See Haury, ad loc. Metrovia, compiled (copied from an

2 The old gate, wiiich is walled up, earlier document ?) in’ the eighth
stands beside the Porta San Giovanni, century, is extant (text ' in Jordan,

3 hTcar the Porta Asinaria, Top, der Stadt Rom, ii. 578).

XVIII

181

SIEGE OF ROME

a fomiidable army. He diminislied.Ms Biiiall garrison, by fling-
ing out forces iiortliward to' seize commanding positions along
tlie Flamiiiiaii Way — Narni, Spoleto, and Penigiaj and some lesser
strongliolds. In tbe meantime Witigis bad sent a considerable
detachment to Dalmatia. Salona was besieged by land and
seaj but the diversion ended in failure, and the province remai.ned
in Imperial hands.^ An attempt to recover Perugia was also
defeated. But the confidence of the Goths rose when they
realised the weakness of the forces with which Rome was held,
and heard rumours of the discontent of the inhabitants at the
military occupation of their city. The king decided to throw
all his strength into the recovery of Rome, and he marched
southward at the head of an army, which is thought by some
to have numbered 150,000 warriors, most of them heavily
armed, with horses protected by mail. The figure must be far
in excess of the truth, ^ but there can be no doubt that the Gothic
host was large compared with the army of 5000 against which
it was advancing. Belisarius was now dealing with a very
different problem from that which had faced him in his cam-
paign against the Vandals. He hastily recalled the generals,
Bessas and Constantine, whom he had sent into Tuscany, bidding
them abandon all their powsitions except Perugia, Spoleto, and
Narni, in which they were to leave small garrisons.

Witigis did not delay to reduce these three places. The
occupation of Narni was important.^ It forced the Gothic
army, just as, more than a hundred years before, the army of
Alaric had been forced, to diverge from the Plaminiaii Road
to the east, to march through the Sabine country, and approach
Rome by the Via Salaria, instead of marching by the Via

^ The end of this expedition is not disproved by the circumstances of
related by Procopius. the siege (see below, pp. 183 lam

2 The figure, nevertheless, was inclined to believe that the number
given by Belisarius in his letter to mentioned by Belisarius represents
Justinian {B,G. i 24) ; see below, p. an estimate of the total Gothic
186. 150,000 Gothic warriors would population of Italy,

mean a Gothic poimiation approaching ® Narnia is 54 Roman miles from
700,000. When they entered Italy the Rome. Its situation is described
number of the Ostrogoths perhaps in some detail by Procopius (i. 17.
hardly reached 100,000, and they 8-11), and the description is not
cannot have multipHed seven times in irrelevant, as showing that even with
forty-five years. Moreover, if they had a small garrison it cunild bar the
been so strong, it would have been progress of an army. One arch and
out of the question to attempt to some piers of the bridge of Augustus
conquer them with the small forces which Procopius mentions still
of Belisarius. The figure is also remain.

182

HI STOR¥,:OF: TEE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap;

Flamiiiia.^ 'l^Tien Witigis reach^^ the Ponte Salario, where
the road crosses the Anio, a few miles from the city, he found
himself arrested by a fort which Belisarius had built on the
bridge with the object of gaining time in order to procure more
provisions.

But the garrison of the fort failed him. On the arrival of the
Goths they decamped by night, and the enemy secured the
bridge. Next day the general, ignorant of the cowardice of Ms
men, rode towards the bridge with a thousand horsemen, and
found that the Goths had crossed. A cavalry engagement
ensued, in which Belisarius, carried away by the excitement of
battle, indiscreetly exposed himself. Deserters knew his dark-
grey horse with a white head, and urged the Goths to aim at
him. But he escaped unwounded. There were severe losses
on both sides, and the small Roman band was in the end forced
to flee. They reached the Salarian Gate about sunset, and the
sentinels, not recognising the general begrimed with dust of
battle, and already informed by fugitives that he was slain,
refused to open. Belisarius turned and charged the pursuers,
who retreated, thinking that a new army had issued from the
gate. He then succeeded in obtaining admission, and spent the

^ The usual view has been that the context {ib. xiv.) that thero are
Goths advanced by the Via Fiaminia bridges over the river in other places
(regaining it somewhere presumably (TroWaxocre roO Trora/zou), meaning, of
between Narnia and Ad Tiberim, course, in the neighbourhood of

now Magliano, where there W'as a Rome. This is not true of the Tiber,

bridge), and that the bridge where which had only the oho bridge outside

Belisarius placed the garrison w^as the city ; but it is true of the Anio,

the Pons Miivius, now Ponte Molle, which is crossed, near Rome, by the
2 miles from Rome. This view was Via Nomentana and the Via Tibur-
held by Gibbon and maintained by tina, as well as by the Via Salaria,
Hodgkin. But it is certainly errone- In two other passages {B.G. iii. 10. 23,
ous and inconsistent with the story, and 24. 31) clearly means

If the fighting had been a..t the Milvian the Anio. This was tiie view” of
Bridge the Roman fugitives would Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages,
have returned to the Porta Fiaminia, i. 372 ; is accepted by Hartmann,
not to the Porta Salaria. The cause Gesch. Italiens, i. 295, n. 19 ; and has
of the error is that Procopius does been defended in a special monograph
not name the bridge, but calls it by L. Fink, Das VerhdUnis der
simply TiMpi-oos rod Trora/nou y€(pi!fpg., Aniohrmhen zur Mulvischen Briiclce
“a bridge of the Tiber” {ib, in Prolcops Gothenhrieg, 1907. Pro-
xiii.). Hence, as the Milvian was copius knew the localities, and the
the only bridge w’hich. Spanned the ambiguous use of cannot be

Tiber north of the city, it was due to ignorance. The explanation
naturally supposed to be meant. But may be found in the modern name of
Ti^epts is ambiguous in Procopius ; the Anio, Teverone, and the use in
it means (1) the Tiber, (2) the Anio. Procopius be taken to show that the
That it means the Anio in this passage old name had passed out of common
is shown by the statement in the speech before his time.

XVIII

SIEGE OF ROME

183

night in making arrangements for the defence of the city. Each
;,gate, was assigned, to the charge of a different leader. One more,
incident' occurred 'before the night was over.'. Witigis sent an
officer to make a speech outside the Salarian Gate. This man,
.whose name' was Wacis, ' reproached the Romans /tor their
treachery to the Goths and for preferring the protection of
Greeks^ people, he said, who had never visited Italy before except
in the capacity of actors or thieving mariners. No one made
any reply to his outburst and he retired.

On the following day the siege began.^ It was to last a year
and nine days, far longer than either of the belligerents antici-
pated. The Goths did not attempt to surround the whole circuit
of the city. They constructed seven camps, one on the west
side of the river, in the region of the Vatican, then known as the
Campus Neroiiis. The other six were east of the Tiber, on the
northern and eastern sides of the city.^ One of them was under
the command of Witigis himself.^ Thus from the Porta Maggiore
to the Porta S. Paolo and the river there was no leaguer. The
whole circuit of the Aurelian Wall, including the Transtiberine
region, was less than thirteen miles, ^ so that if Witigis had the

^ Procopius reproduces the Latin efcacrrop {B,G. i. 19).

name — VpatKoi {i. IS). Hodgkin (iv. 148) says that Procopius

2 For the chronology of the siege is “ rather vague here.” Could he
Procopius supplies the following data. have been more explicit ? During the
It ended “ about the spring equinox ” siege the Goths profaned and damaged
in 538, and lasted 1 year and 9 days many tombs of Christian martyrs
(ii. 10, p. 194). It began at the outside the walls. We know this
beginning of March ( MapHov tcrra^terou, from verses which were afterwards
ii. 24, p. 122). In the Lib. pont inscribed on the sepulchres when
{Silver i as) j Feb. 21 is mentioned as Pope Vigilius restored them. See
the first day of the siege. It is not Anth. Lat. Supp. i. Nos. 83, 87, 89, 99.
easy to reconcile this difference. s uiciudcs the wall along the

* They can be located as follows : river from the P. Flaminia to the
(1) just north of the Flamlnian Gate, Pons Aurelius (Ponte Sisto). See
Porta del Popoio ; (2) in the grounds Jordan, i. 1. 343-344. It must be
of the Villa Borghese, to command remembered tliat the Transtiberine
the Salarian and Pincian Gates ; (3) portion of the Aurelian ^Vali enclosed
on the Via Nomentana, to command only the Janiculum and the southern
the Porta Nomentana; (4) and (5) part of the modern Transtiberine
on the Via Tiburtina, near San town, reaching the river just north of
Lorenzo, and (6) farther south, on 4he Ponte Sisto. The Gotliic camp
the Via Praeuestina, to command the on this side of the river was far from
corresponding gates (P. Tiburtina and the walls, and its j^rincipal purpose
P. Labicana). It is possible that the was to prevent the Bomans from
Porta Pinciana had been closed and destroying the Milvian Bridge (so
not used during the fifth century and Procopius). It was under the com-
was reopened by Bclisarius (see Jordan, mand of Marcias, who hcid been the
Topogr. i. 1, p. 354, cxj. ii. p. 578). commander of an army in Provence,

^ TtSr oe 07) a\\o)P OiiTTiyis ijyeLro and arrived on the scene after the
t'KTos auTos. dpx(op yap els Kara siege had begun.

184

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE cuKV.

huge host which he is supposed to have led against Rome he
would have had a man to every foot of the wall and an army
of more than 10,000 to spare. He could not have decided that
he had too few to blockade the city completely.^

The first operation of the Goths was to cut the numerous
aqueducts which traversed the Campagna and supplied Rome
with water from the Latin hills. The destruction of these
niagmficent works, although it caused some inconvenience,
hardly affected the fortunes of the siege ; but it had far-reaching
consequences for the future of Eome.^ Since the third century
B.o. the city had been excellently supplied with pure water, and
new conduits had constantly been built to meet the growing
needs of the inhabitants. For a thousand years after the act
of demolition wrought by the Goths, the Romans were again,
as in the early Republic, compelled to draw their water from the
Tiber and the wells. The time-honoured habits of luxurious
bathing, wliich had been such a conspicuous feature of their
civilisation, came to an end. The aqueducts might easily have
been restored at the end of the war, and doubtless this would
have been done if Rome had again become an Imperial residence,
but the comfort and cleanliness of the people were no object of
care to the medieval popes, who regarded the ancient Thermae as
part of the unregenerate life of paganism. The long lines of arcades
which crossed the Campagna were allowed to fall into ruin.

The cutting of the aqueducts caused an immediate difficulty.
There was no water to turn the corn mills which supplied the
Romans wdth bread. The inventive brain of Belisarius devised
an expedient. Close to a bridge (probably the Rons Aeliiis)
through whose arch the stream of the Tiber bore down with
considerable force, he stretched from bank to bank tense ropes
to \vliich he attached two boats, separated by a space of two feet.
Two mills were placed on each boat, aiicl between the skiffs
was suspended the water-wheel, which the current easily turned.
A line of boats was formed, and a series of mills in the bed of the
river ground all the corn that was required. The efforts of the

^ Ovx oLol re Bvre^ arpa- the aqueducts, based on Laiicianfs

roTr4o(p to ret^os reptXa^eV^at /ci5/cX<^, monograph Le acque e gli acqmdotti di
B.G. i. 19. 2. Moma Antica. There were eleven

principal aqueducts, including that of

2 Compare Hodgkin (iv. ch. vL), Alexander Severus. Procopius says
who giv-es an interesting account of that there were fourteen (i. 19).

XVIII

185

SIEGE OF ROME

enemy to disconcert tliis ingenious' device and break tlie mackines
by throwing trees, and corpses into' the water were, easily thwarted
by Belisariiis he stretched across the stream iron chains -which
ibrmed an impassable barrier against all dangerous obstacles
that' might harm his boats or wheelst^

The Eomans chafed under the hardships which the first days
of the siege brought upon them and which seemed likely to
increase. Witigis, informed of their discontent by deserters,
thought that Belisariiis, under the influence of public opinion,
might be induced to relinquish his plan of defending Rome
if a favourable proposal were made. He sent envoys, whom
Belisariiis received in the presence of Ms generals and the
senators. The Gothic spokesman enlarged on the miseries which
the siege must inflict on the Romans, and offered to permit the
Imperial army to leave the city unharmed and with all their
property. The reply of Belisarius was a stern refusal. I tell
you,’’ he said, 'Hhe time will come when you shall be glad to
hide your heads under the thorn bushes and shall be unable to
do so. Rome belongs to us of old. You have no right to it. It
is impossible for Belisarius to surrender it, while he is alive.”

A grand attempt to take the city by assault soon followed.
The walls were attacked in various places, but everywhere the
besiegers were repelled. The fighting was particularly severe
near the Aiirelian Gate, w^est of the Tiber, v/here the Goths
attacked the great quadrangular Mausoleum of Hadrian, and the
defenders, hard pressed, hurled statues dowm upon the enemy
Belisarius, though he openly expressed complete confidence,
was well a^vare of the dangers and difficulties of Ms situation,
and knew that success was hardly possible unless new troops
came to his aid. He wrote a letter to Justinian, in wMch he
reported his operations and urged in the strongest language his
need of reinforcements* So far,” he wrrote, all has gone well,
whether our success be due to valour or to fortune, but in order
that this success may continue, it behoves me to declare plainly
what it behoves you to do. Though God orders all things as
He wills, yet men are praised or blamed according to their success
or failure. Let arms and soldiers be sent to us in such numbers
that henceforward 'we may w’’age the war on terms of equality.
Let the conviction penetrate your miiid, 0 Emperor, that if
^ It was supposed that the Gothic losses in dead on this day were 30,000.

180 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the barbarians overcome ns now, we sball lose not only your
doniinion of Italy but the army also, and besides this we shall
suffer the immense disgrace of failure, not to speak of the shame
of bringing ruin on the Romans who ^preferred loyalty to your
throne to their own safety. Understand that it is not possible
to hold Rome long with ever so large a host. It is surrounded by
open country and, not being a seaport, it is cut ofi from supplies.
The Romans are now friendly, but if their hardships are pro-
tracted the pinch of famine will force them to do many things
against their own wishes. For myself, I know that my life belongs
to your Majesty, and I shall not be forced out of this place while
I live. But consider how such an end to the life of Belisarius
would affect your reputation.’’ ^

The Emperor had despatched reinforcements in December
under Valerian and Martin, but they spent the winter months in
Greece and had not yet arrived. On receiving the urgent appeal
of liis general, Justinian ordered them to proceed without delay,
and prepared to raise a new armament. Meanwhile, on the day
following the Gothic assault, Belisarius sent the women and
children and the slaves who w'ere not employed in garrison duties
out of the city. Some travelled by boat dovui the Tiber, others
departed by the Appian Way. The enemy made no attempt
to hinder their departure. The artisans and tradespeople, whose
occupation was almost gone, were drafted into the garrison, mixed
with the regular soldiers, and paid a small wage for their services.^
Enraged, perhaps, at the failure of his attack, Witigis put to
death the senators whom he kept at Ravenna as hostages, except
a few who managed to escape. It was an act of barbarity which
was seldom practised, and was as useless as it was cruel. At
the same time he occupied Portus, at the mouth of the Tiber.
This was a serious blow to the besieged, for Portus had for
centuries been the port of Rome, with which it wuvS connected
by an excellent road and a towpath along the right bank of the

^ I have reproduced a good part of to open the gates of the temple of
this document because, if not a literal Janus in the Eorum. Since Borne
copy of the original letter, there is had. become Christian the temple had
every reason to believe that Procopius, been kept shut in war as well as in
who may have written it himself, peace. The eiforts of the secret
repi’odiiced its actual tenor (B.O. L pagans (who remained undiscovered)
24). ^ failed to open the bronze doors, but

A scandal was created at this damaged the bolts or hinges so that
time by some persons who attempted they would not shut tight.

XVIII

SIEGE OF ROME

187

river, so tiiat heavy barges ladea with supplies could be towed
up by oxen without the aid of oars or sails. The older harbour
of Ostia, , over, against Portus, remained in the hands of the
Eornans,. but there was no towpath, so that the river , traffic
from here depended on the wind. Moreover, when the Goths
threw a garrison of a thousand men into Portus, boats could not
anchor at Ostia, and were forced to put in at Antium, a day’s
journey distant.^ The secretary of Belisarius regrets that 300
men could not have been spared to secure Portus, which was so
strong that even so few could have held it.

About three weeks later Martin and Valerian arrived with a
force of 1600 cavalry, mostly Huns and Slavs, and they suc-
ceeded in eluding the Goths and entering Rome. Sorties were
carried out after their arrival with uniform success, which
Belisarius ascribed to the superiority of his well- trained mounted
archers ; and, if he could have had his way, he would have con-
tinued to wear down the enemy by constant small sallies, in
which little was risked. But the army, rendered confident
through their successes and convinced of their superiority to
the barbarians, clamoured for a pitched battle, and their leader,
wearied by their importunities, reluctantly yielded. A general
action was fought in the north of the city, on both sides of the
river, and the Romans, routed by sheer weight of numbers, were
driven back within the walls.

Towards the end of June the besieged began to feel the
pinch of hunger and disease. There was only enough corn to
feed the soldiers, and the Goths tightened the blockade, hitherto
conducted with remarkable negligence, by constructing a fortress
at the junction of two aqueducts commanding the Appian and
Latin Ways.‘^ The citizens^ urged Belisarius to risk a battle.

^ On the decline of Ostia and rise of decline of the old port set in. Cassio-
Port as see G. Oalza, Gli scavi recenti dorns (Far. vii. 9), in describing the
7ieir abitato di Ostia, in the Mon. two towns as has in mind

antich. of the Acc. dei Lincei, xxYi. Ostia*s ancient importance.

1920. Ostia had been a rich and ^ The medieval tower, known as
prosperous city, as the excavated the Torre Piscali, about S-J- miles from
ruins show, till the beginning of the Rome, marks the place,
fourth century, for the Portus of ^ ® Many had looked forward to the
Claudius across the Tiber had been month of July as the term of their
simply the port of Ostia where ; all sufferings, on the faith of a Sibylline
the business was transacted. The oracle which predicted that in that
policy of Constantine brought Portus month the Romans would have a
directly under the central adminis- new Iving, and Rome would have
tration at Rome, and the gradual nothiiig niore to fear froin the Getae.

m HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

He refused, but held out promises that large reinforcements and
supplies would soon arrive. The prospect of approacliing relief
was based only on rumour, and be sent bis secretary Procopius
to Campania to discover whether tbe report was true, to collect
provision ships, and to send to Rome ail the troops that could
be spared from the garrisons of the Campanian towns. Procopius
left Rome at night by the southern gate of St. Paul, and, eluding
the Goths, reached Haples and executed his orders. Some time
afterwards Belisarius sent Antonina to Naples, where, in a place
of safety, she might help, with her considerable capacity for
organisation, in the task of sending relief to Rome. She found
that Procopius had already raised 500 soldiers and had loaded a
large number of vessels with corn. But the reinforcements, so
anxiously awaited, had not yet come, though they were on their
way. They seem to have arrived in the month of November.^
3000 Isaurians disembarked at Naples and 1800 cavalry at
Otranto. Of their commanders the most distinguished was John,
the nephew of Vitalian, one of the bravest and most skilful
officers who served under Belisarius.^

In the meantime the army of Witigis was suffering, as well as
the Romans, from famine and disease. It was steadily declining
in numbers when the discouraging tidings came that new forces
were on their way to the relief of Rome. The 3000 Isaurians
were sent by sea to Ostia, but John, the nephew of Vitalian,
with his 1800 cavalry and the 500 uffio had been raised by
Procopius, marched by the Appian Way, followed by a train of
waggons laden with food. To prevent the Goths from inter-
cepting them in force, Belisarius arranged a strong sortie on the

Procoxoius (i. 24) reproduced the Latin before the winter solstice (ii. 7. p. 181).
words of the oracle, but they have It seems to follow that Procopius
been corrupted in the MSS. For cannot have been sent to Naples*
attempts to restore the original see before September or October, though
Bury (B.Z. xv. 4o), and H. Jackson one would iraturaily infer from the
[Journal of Philology, xxxiii. 142), narrative that he was sent in July
who rightly points out that the word (so Hodgkin, iv. 246). But it cannot
before rmnse (which is quite clear be supposed that he would have kept
in the MSS.) must have been quinto, back for four months the 500 men
not quintili, as has generally been whom he collected and Who were
assumed. ^ sorely needed at Borne. Antonina

^ They cannot have arrived sooner, appears to have been back in Borne
for they must have reached Borne in before November 18, for she took part
December, since after their arrival in the deposition of Pope Siiverius
there the Goths immediately despaired [Lib. q>onL lx. Silv. p. 292) ; cp.
and sent envoys to Belisarius (ei)dh below, p. 379.

Hv iTTeyiyojcrKoy rbv 7r6Xejnop (B.G. ^ jg called the “ Sanguinary ’’

ii. 6 ad hiiL), and this was shortly in the Lib. pont. [ib.).

XVIII

189

SIEGE OF ROME

camp near tlie Flaminian Gate. It was. completely siiccessfiil ;
tlie Goths were utterly routed, ■ This was the turning-point in
the siege. Witigis despaired of taking Kome and sent envoys
to Belisariiis, the chief of whom was a distiiigiiislied but niinamed
Italian.,

The conversation between the general and the spokesman of
the Goths is reported by Procopius, and, as we may safely assume
that he had returned to Eome and w^as present at the inter-
view, it is possible that he has given, at least partly, the tenor of
the dialogue.

Envoy. We know and you know that the war has gone badly for both
of us. It is stupid to persist in suffering with no prospect of relief, and
it behoves the leaders of both belligerents to consider the safety of their
men instead of their own reputations, and to seek a solution which will be
fair both to themselves and to their enemy. We have therefore come
with certain proposals. But we request you to interrupt us at once if
anything we say appears unreasonable.^

Belisarius. I have no objection to the interview taking the form of a
conversatiGii. But I hope your proposals will be just and pacific.

'Envoy. In coming against us, your friends and allies, with armed force,
you Romans have acted unjustly. Remember that the Goths did not
wrest Italy from the Romans, but Odovacar overthrew the Emperor and
established a tyranny. Then Zeno, wishing to deliver the iancl,^ but
being himself unable to subdue Odovacar, induced our king Theoderic,
who was then threatening Constantinople, to punish Odovacar for the
wrong he did to Augustulus and to undertake the government of Italy
for the future. It was thus that we Goths were established in Italy, and
we have observed the laws and the constitution of the Empire as faithfully
as any of the Emperors of the past. Neither Theoderic nor any of his
successors has ever enacted a law. We have shown scrupulous respect
for the religion of the Romans. No Italian has ever been forcibly con-
verted to Arianism, no Gothic convert has been forced to return to his old
creed. We have reserved all the posts in the civil service for Italians,
no Goth has ever been appointed. The Romans have had a yearly consul
nominated by the Emperor of the East, But you, though for ten years
you allowed Odovacar’s barbarians to oppress Italy, are now attempting
to take it from those w^'ho are legally in possession of it. Depart hence,
with your property and the plunder you have seized.

BeUsarms. You have spoken at length, and disingenuously. Theoderic
was sent by Zeno against Odovacar, but not on the condition that he should
himself be master of Italy. For what would the Emperor have gained

^ IJpoff QKGL ok p-)jcret Melians and Athenians in Thucydides

(Braun’s correction of ^vyeyx^ipija’ec) (v, 85).

Toi)s \6yovs au.(poTepovs woiaa 6 OiLy

B.G. ii. 6. Procopius is evidently ^ Tificopeiy jih rtS ^vfjL-^cjdacnXevKorL
thinking of the dialogue between the (i.e. Romulus Augustulus) ^ovXofxems.

iOO HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

in replacing one tyimt by another ? The object was to restore Italy
to the Imi)erial authority. Theoderio did well in his dealings A^ith Odova-
car, but acted wrongly in refusing to restore the land to its true lord. I
will never hand over the Emperor’s territory to any one else.

Envoy. iUthough all present Imow perfectly well that what -we said
is true, Ave have not come to bandy arguments. We are willing to sur-
render the rich island of Sicily, which is so important to you for the
security of Africa.

BeUsarim. We thank you. And we on our part are prepared to
surrender to you the Avliole island of Britain, which belongs to iis from
of old and is far larger than Sicily. We cannot accept such a favour
without ghnng an equivalent.

Envoy. Weil, what do you say if we add Campania or Naples ?

BeKsarms, I ha^m no powers to dispose of the Emperor’s property.

Envoy, We Avould undertake to pay a yearly tribute to the Emperor.

Belisarius. I am only empowered to keep the land for its legal lord.

Envoy. Then we must send an embassy to the Emperor and negotiate
with him. For this purpose we must ask you to conclude an armistice
for a definite time.

Belisarms. Be it so. It shall never be said that I put obstacles in
the way of a peaceful settlement.

We may take the later part of tMs conversation as a genuine
report. Nor is it improbable that the Italian delegate of the
Goths raised the question of the constitutional position of Italy
and the legitimacy of the Ostrogothic government. If so, it is
interesting to observe that both his argument and the reply of
Belisarius misrepresented historical facts. On the Gothic side
it was stated that Odovacar’s offence, in the eyes of Zeno, lay
in the dethronement of Eomulus Augustiilus, whereas Zeno
regarded Augustiilus as a usurper, and it was out of respect for
the rights of Julius Nepos that he at first refused to recognise
Odovacar. But he did recognise him subsequently, so that
Odovacar, at least during the later years of his reign, was as
little a '' tyrant ’’ as Theoderio himself. Belisarius distorted
facts more seriously. He completely ignored the definite agree-
ment concluded between Theoderic and the Emperor Anastasius.
It was on this agreement that the legitimacy of Ostrogothic rule
rested, and its existence invalidated the argument of Belisarius.
It is not too much to read between the lines that Procopius
himself considered that legally the Goths had a good case.

While Belisarius was receiving the envoys the reinforcements
were arriving at Ostia. The same night he rode dowm to the
port and arranged that the provisions should be transported up

XVIII

191

SIEGE OF ROME

the river an.d that the troops should march to Eoiiie without
delay. His confidence that, the enemy would not interfere with
the operations was Justified .by-ihe event. The arrangements
for an, armistice of three months .vrere then completed. Hostages
were interchaiige.d,. and '.a guarantee was given that even if the
truce were violated in Italy, ■ the' envoys should be allowed to
returnunliaxmedfromConstantinople.'

Rome wvas rerfictualled,. but the Goths in their camps .and
.fortresses we.re suffering .from want . of loocl. .The secretary of
Belisarius observes that the cause of tliis scarcity was the Imperial
sea-power, which prevented . them from receiving the imports
on which Italy, depended. ' The short.age of , food decided Witigis
to remove his garrisons from Portus, Centumcellae (Civita
Vecehia), and Albanum, and these places were promptly occiijiied
by Imperial troops. The Goths, co.mplained of this action as a
breach of the truce, but Belisarius laughed at them. He cer-
tainly put a free interpretation on the meaning of an armistice.
He sent John, in command of 2000 troops, to spend the rest
of the winter on the borders of Picenum, with instructions that,
in case the enemy should break the truce, he was to swoop down
on the Picentine territory, plunder it, and make slaves of the
•Gothic women and' children. " ■

About this time the attention of Belisarius was directed to
the situation of northern Italy, where the inhabitants were
watching the struggle with lively interest. Prominent citizens
of Milan, along with Datius the archbishop, succeeded in reaching
Rome, and begged him to send a smaE force to the north, assur-
ing him that it would be an easy matter not only to hold Milan
but also to procure the revolt of the whole province of Liguria.
Belisarius consented to the plan, but he could not execute it
during the truce, and the Milanese emissaries remained at Rome
for the winter.

Soon after this a tragic incident occurred, which, if we may
believe the secretary of Belisarius, was connected with domestic
scandals in the generaFs household. When was prepar-

ing to march on Rome, Praesidius, a distinguished citizen of
Ravenna, rode with a few servants to Spoletium with the
purpose of joining the Imperialist cause. The only valuables
he carried with him were two daggers with sheaths richly adorned
with gold and gems. He halted at a church outside Spoletium,

192 HISTORY OF THE LA TER ROM A R EMPIRE chap.

wHcli was then Md by . This general heard about

the precious daggers, and sent one of his followers to the church,
who forced Praesidius tO’ surrender his treasure. Praesidius
went on to Eome, intent on complaining to Belisarius, but the
emergencies and dangers of the siege hindered him from troubling
the commander with his private grievance. As soon as the
truce had been arranged he made his complaint and demanded
redress. Belisariiis urged Constantine to restore the weapons,
but in vain. Then one day, as he, was riding in the Forum,
Praesidius seized his bridle, and loudly demanded whether it
was permitted by the Imperial laws that when a suppliant
arrived from the camp of the enemy he should be robbed of
his property. Belisariiis was compelled to promise that the
daggers should be restored, and summoning Constantine to a
private room, in the presence of other generals, told him that
he must give up the daggers. Constantine replied that he
would rather throw them into the Tiber. Belisariiis called his
guards. I suppose they are to slay m.e,’’ said Constantine.
“Certainly not,’’ said Belisarius, “ but to force your armour-
bearer to restore the daggers.” But Constantine, believing that
he was to die, drew his dagger and tried to stab Belisarius in
the belly. Starting back, Belisarius seized Bessas and sheltered
himself behind him, while Valerian and Ildiger dragged Con-
stantine back. Then the guards came in, wrested the weapon
from Constantine, and removed him. Some time afterwards he
was put to death.

His execution was severely condemned by Procopius, who
denounces it as the only impious act ever com.mitted by Beli-
sarius, and an act out of keeping with his character, which ivas
distinguished by fairness and leniency. This verdict is remark-
able, for at no time would the capital penalty be considered an
iinjust severity in the case of an officer who attempted the life
of his superior. But in his Secret History Procopius supplements
the story and thereby explains his condemnation of the act.
If vre may believe what he there relates, Constantine was sacri-
ficed to the hatred of Antonina. The scandalous anecdote is
that when Belisarius had discovered in Sicily his wife’s dis-
graceful intrigue with Theodosius,^ Constantine expressed his

^ ILA. 1, p. 10. It is to be noted that Procopius was not in Sicily when
this scandal occurred. He was in Africa. See above, p. 143,

XVIH

SIEGE OF ROME

193

sjmipathj witli the injured husband, and observed, “ If it were
my case, I would have slain the woman and not the young man.'’
The words wwe reported. to' Antonina, "who bided her time for
revenge. The affair of Praesidius brought her the opportunity
to punish Constantine for his offensive words. Her persuasions
induced Belisarius to order the execution, and, according to
Procopius, the Emperor was seriously displeased at the death
of such a capable general.

Soon after tliis incident the truce was unequivocally broken
by repeated endeavours of the Goths to steal secretly into Home.
They planned to gain an entrance through the aqueduct known
as the Aqua Virgo, near the Pincian Gate, but their explorations
in the tunnel "were revealed by the light of their torches. Another
device was to drug the guards of a low section of the wall, on
the north-western side of the city, with the help of two Romam,
vrho were bribed. But one of them informed Belisarius and
the scheme was frustrated. On another occasion the Goths
openly attacked and were repelled. In retaliation for these
acts Belisarius sent orders to John to descend upon the Picentiiie
provinces. Some preparations for this eventuality had been
made by the Goths. John was opposed by a force under
Ulitheus, an uncle of the king, but the Romans vreie victorious,
and Ulitheus was slain. This battle must have been fought
somewhere in the southern province of Picenum,^ for John then
marched to Auximum (Osimo). Finding that it had strong
natural defences, he made no attempt to take it, but marched
forward into the northern Picenum and reached Urbinum.
He judged that Urbinum, like Auximum, might be difficult to
capture, and went on to Ariminum. In leaving two fortresses
held by the enemy in his rear, John disobeyed the express
injunctions of his commander-in-chief.^ But his disobedience
had a useful result. He shrewdly foresaw that the seizure of
Ariminum, -which is only a day’s march from Ravenna, would
compel Witigis, fearing for the safety of the Gothic capital, to
raise the siege of Rome. Ariminum offered no resistance, the
garrison. fled to Ravenna. John presently received a message
from the Gothic queen. Mat^^^ hated the husband to

^ Piceniira suburbicariiim, of wMcb lay siege to any fortress that lay
tile chief towns ivere Ancona, Anxi- on Ms route, and if be failed to take
mum, Fii’mum, and Asculum. it, not to advance farther. Procopius

2 Belisarius had ordered Mm to (ii. 10) justifies John’s disobedience.

VOL. II

m HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

whom she had been united against her will, and now she im-
petuously proposed to betray Eavenna and to marry John,
though he must have been completely a stranger to her.

When the news of the fall of Aximinum reached Eome, the
Goths immediately burned the palisades of their camps and
prepared to depart. Belisarius did not allow them to go un-
harmed. He waited till about half of their host had crossed the
Milvian Bridge and then attacked them with all his forces.
Their losses were considerable. Besides those who were slain
in combat many were drowned in the Tiber. Thus the siege
of Eome, which had lasted for a year and nine days, came to an
end about the middle of .March, a.b. 538. It had furnished
Witigis with an opportunity to demonstrate his incompetence,
and Belisarius to display his resourcefulness.

Small as his forces were, Belisarius seems throughout to have
been sanguine that he would be able to overcome the resistance
of the Goths. It had been, and was to be, a war of sieges ; if
the enemy had met him in the open field, after the arrival of
the reinforcements, it is possible that he would have won a
decisive victory, and the conquest of Italy might have been
achieved almost as rapidly as the conquest of Africa. He was
asked during the siege of Eome how it was that he was so
confident, seeing the disparity in strength between the army
of the enemy and his own. His reply was that he relied on
the superiority of his tactics, " Ever since we first met the
Goths,’’ he said,^ '' in small engagements, I studied the differ-
ences in our tactical methods for the purpose of adapting my
tactics so as to make up for the inferiority of my numbers. I
found that the chief difference is that almost all our Eoman
troops and our Hunnic allies are excellent horse-archers, whereas
the Goths are totally unpractised in this form of warfare. Their
cavalry are accustomed to use only lances and swords, while their
bowmen are unmounted and go into battle under the cover of
their heavy armed cavalry. And so, except in hand-to-hand
fighting, their cavalry have no means of protecting themselves
against the missiles of the enemy and can easily be cut up, and
their infantry are ineffectual against mounted forces.” But no
tactics, however able, would have succeeded against the Goths,

^ Procopius, B.G, I 27. 26.

XVIII

SIEGE OF RIMINI

195

wlio were brave and well disciplined, if tbeir army had been as
vast as that which the historian alleges Witigis led against
Rome.

§ 6. Siege mid- Relief of Arimimmi (a.d. 638)

After the raising of the siege of Rome the scene of war shifts
northward, to the fortresses along the Flaminian Way, in the
lands of Umbria and Picenum, and to the provinces beyond
the Po, where fighting was still to go on for two years before
Belisarins succeeded in capturing the Gothic capital.

The Flaminian Way, which, traversing the Apennines, con-
nected Rome with Ravenna, reached the Hadriatic at Fanum
Fortimae (Fano), whence, following the coast, it led to
Ariminum, and was continued to Ravenna. The general dis-
position of the belligerent forces in these districts is easy to
grasp. The principal fortified hill towns to the west of the
Flaminian Way, with the exception of Perusia, were held by
the Goths, and those to the east, with the exception of Auximum
(Osimo), by the Romans.^ Ariminum, as we saw, had been
somewhat audaciously occupied by John, the nephew of Vitalian,
with 2000 Isaurians, and Ancona was securely held by Conon.

It appeared to Belisarius that it would be a serious error to
keep 2000 excellent cavalry, who would be invaluable in open
warfare, shut up in Ariminum, only tempting the Goths to
besiege it. Accordingly, as soon as the enemy retired from
Rome, his first care w^as to send forward Martin and Ildiger at
the head of 1000 horsemen to order John to withdraw from
Ariminum, and replace his Isaurians by a small force of infantry
taken from the garrison of Ancona, which could easily spare
them. As the retreating army of Witigis had diverged from
the Flaminian highroad in order to avoid the forts of Narnia
and Spoletium, no obstacle opposed the advance of Martin and
Ildiger until they reached Petra Pertusa, the tunnelled Rock,”
a pass between Gales (Cagli) and Forum Sempronii (Fossombrone),

^ Cp. Hodgkin, op. cit. i-v. 28S. by 4000. Narnia, Spoletium, and
Urbs Vetus (Orvieto) was held by Hirmum were in the hands of the
1000 Goths, Tuder (Todi) by 400, Bbmans. The distance from Rome
Clusiiim (Chiusi) by 1000, Urbinum to Ravenna by the Via r’iaminia is
by 2000, Mons Feletris (Montefeltro) 370 kils. ; from Fanum to Ravenna
by 500, Caesena by 500, Auximum about 96,

196 FIISrORY OF THE LATER ROMAK EMPIRE chap.

about twenty-five miles vfromv the' Hadriatic, Sea.^ This pass,
now known as the Passo di Fiirlo, is accurately described by
Procopius. The Fiaminian Eoad comes up against a high wall
of rock, on the.right of 'which a river descends with such a .rapid.,
ciirreiit that it would be death to attempt to cross it, and on
the left the precipitous clifi to which the rock belongs rises so
high that men standing on its summit would appear to those
below like the smallest birds. The Emperor Vespasian bored a
tunnel through this rock, as an inscription on the spot records.
It w'as a natural fortress, well adapted for defence. The Roman
troops W'ho now advanced found it held by a Gothic garrison
and closed by doors at either end. The Goths, who had their
women and children mth them, lived in houses outside the
tunnel, apparently on the Hadriatic side. When it was found
impossihle to make any impression on the well-fortified entrance
to the passage, some men were sent up to the top of the cliff, and
dislodging huge fragments of rock they rolled them down on
the Gothic block-houses below. The enemy immediately sur-
rendered, and Martin and Ildiger, leaving a small garrison
behind them, continued their journey to Fanum. From here
they had to ride southward to Ancona to pick up a detachment
of foot-soldiers to replace the Isaurians at Ariminum. Then
retracing their steps to Fanum they arrived safely at their
destination, and delivered the commands of Belisarius to John.
But John declined to obey, and leaving the foot-soldiers with
him Martin and Ildiger departed to report the issue of their
errand to the commander-in-chief.

The insubordination of John strikes the note of the subse-
quent course of the Roman conduct of the war. Counsels \vere
divided, and the commander-in-chief could no longer depend
on his generals to conform to his plans. Belisarius was slow
and cautious, but it is probable that, if he had been able to have
his own way and secure the punctual obedience of his subordinates,
the war would have been shortened. John was an excellent
but sometimes over-confident soldier. He was impatient of the
cautions deliberation of Belisarius, and doubtless thought that
he was himself more worthy of the post of supreme commander.

^ It is called Intercisa in the high, and broad. On either side are

Itineraries, and is a little to the east the halves of a mountain: on right

of the jnodern Acqualagna. The Monte Paganuecio, 3259 feet high, on

pass is 125 feet long, over 17 feet left Monte Pietralata, 2960 feet high.

XVIII'

SIEGE OF RIMINI

197

Iii'.tlie jireseBt'.iiistaiice:,' 'tlie::eye^^ slid wed'; that Beli-'.

sarins was liglit.^/ 'Witigis.-had no sooner .crossed . the , Apennines
than he addressed himself to the siege of Arimmiini. Failing in
his assaults, he sat down to take it by hunger, and the besieged
were presently reduced to extreme distress ' (April, a,d,, 538).

Belisariiis, mean while had begun to advance northward from
Koine, to carry out methodically his plan of reducing, first of
all, the Gothic fortresses west of the Apennines. It was about
the middle of the year. Clusium and Tuder surrendered on his
approach. His next object would have been the reduction of
Urbs Vetus, but the execution of his plan was disarranged by
the arrival of reinforcements from the East which now reached
Picenum under the command of the eunuch Parses, keeper of
the Emperor’s privy puivse.^ The new army was 7000 strong,
consisting of 5000 Roman troops under another Narses and
Justin the Master of Soldiers in Iliyricum, and 2000 Herul
auxiliaries under tlieii* own leaders. Such an important addition
to the Imperial fighting forces modified the situation, and Beli-
sarius, leaving Urbs Vetus unreduced, marched to Picenum to
confer with Parses and arrange the future conduct of the war.
They met at Firmum and a council was held w^hich had -weighty
consequences. The urgent question was the relief of Ariminum,
which was hard pressed and might be forced to surrender through
hunger. Should the army march to its relief immediately?
Belisarius was opposed to this course on military grounds. So
long as Auximum was held by the enemy, an advance against
the Goths at Ariminum would expose Ms rear tp an attack
from the garrison of that fortress. The majority of the generals
present agreed, and held that no risks should be taken to save
John, w-hose predicament was due to Ms own rashness and
insubordination. Narses, who was a personal friend of John,
opposed this view. He pointed out that the disobedience of
John was a side-issue which ought not to affect their decision.
After the relief of Ariminum John could be pumshed for defying
the commands of Belisarius. But it would be highly inexpedient,
he argued, considering not only the material loss, but also the
moral consequences, to allow an important city and a large

i They probably landed at Ancona, mander, gave the Goths battle outside
Shortly before this Witigis had sent the wails and was severely defeated ;
a force against it. Conon, the com- but the fortress w^as not taken.

198 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

body of troops— Dot to speak of a vigorous general— to fall
into the hands of the foe.

While the council was sitting, a soldier from Ariminiim who
had eluded the blockade arrived in the camp with a letter from
John. Its purport w^as: ''All our supplies have long since
.failed us. Unable to resist the enemy, we cannot hold out
against the pressure of the inhabitants, and within seven days
we shall have reluctantly to surrender ourselves and the city.
Our extreme necessity is, I think, an adequate excuse for an act
wMch may appear unbeseeming.” This message, simply am
nounciiig a fact and making no demand for succour, strengthened
whatever effect may have been produced by the arguments of
Narses. Belisarius decided to do all that could be done to save
Ariminum, though he still felt grave scruples whether it was a
wise thing to do.

It would be bold for a modern critic, with the meagre evidence
at his disposal, to assert that the hesitations of the commander-
in-chief were unjustified, but it is difficult to resist the impression
that the course recommended by Narses was the right one. It
required military skill, but when Belisarius set his mind to the
problem he solved it triumphantly. In order to mitigate the
danger from Auximum, he posted a thousand men to the east
of it near the coast. A large force was sent by sea to Ariminum
under the command of Ildiger, who was instructed not to dis-
embark until a second army, which, led by Martin, was to march
along the coast road, .approached the city. Martin, when he
arrived, was to light many more fires than were required, in
order to deceive the enemy as to the number of his troops.
Belisarius, accompanied by Narses, led the rest of the army by
an inland mountainous route with the purpose of descending
on Ariminum from the north-west.^ For the full success of the
plan it was necessary that the arrivals of the three armies on the

^ The only indication that Pro- the narrative of Procopius. There
copius gives of the route is that they can, I think, be little doubt that they
passed Urbs Salvia (Urbesaglia), left the Flaminian Way at Seheggia or
which is half-way between Fermo at Acqualagna and followed one of
and Nocera. They must of course the routes noticed below, pp. 288-89.
have crossed the Flaminian Way. Compare the retreat of Garibaldi in
Hodgkin’s view that they followed 1849, via San Marino to Musano (due
the Flaminian Way from ISTocera, so west of Rimini). See G. M. Trevelyan,
that from Fano onward their route Garibaldi's Defence of the Roman Re-
would have coincided with that of public^ chaps, xiii., xiv.

Martin, is entirely incompatible with

XVIII RELIEF OF RIMINI 199

scene slioiild be timed to coincide. At a day’s journey from
Ariminuin a few. Gotbs fell in' with the army .of Belisarins, and
hardly realised, that they were in the -presence of an enemy .till
Roman ..arrows,, began to ■work havoc among . them. • Some fell,
others crawled wounded behind the shelter of rocks. From
their concealment they could see the standards of Belisarius,
and they received the impression of an army far in excess of its
actual numbers. In the night they made their way to the camp
of Witigis at Ariminum, and arriving at mid-day reported the
approach of Belisarius with an innumerable host. The Goths
immediately formed in battle order on the northern side of the
city and spent the afternoon looking towards the hills. A¥hen
night fell and they wwe composing themselves to rest, they
suddenly saw to the south-east the blaze of the fires which had
been kindled by the troops of Martin. They realised that they
were in danger of being surrounded, and passed the night in
terror. When morning came and they looked out to sea, they
beheld a great armament of hostile ships approaching. In fear
and confusion they broke up their camp, and no man thought
of anything bxit reaching the shelter of Ravenna. If the garrison
of the city had rushed but and dealt death among the panic-
stricken fugitives, Procopius thought that the war might have
ended there and then. But the soldiers of John were too
exhausted by tlieir privations to seize the moment.

Ildiger and the troops who had come by sea were the first
to arrive in the abandoned camp of the barbarians, Belisarius
arrived at mid-day. "When he met John, pale and gaunt with
hunger, he could not forbear remarking that he ought to thank
Ildiger, John dryly replied that his gratitude was due not to
Ildiger but to Narses.

§ 7. Dissensions in ike Imperial Army

The relief of Ariminum, accomplished without the loss of a
single life, was a new proof of the military capacity of Belisarius,
but it was a moral triumph for Narses, since but for his infiuence
it would never have been undertaken. Distrust and division
ensued between the commander-in-chief and the chamberlain,
and the bloodless victory hardly compensated for the injuries
which this dissension inflicted on the Imperial cause. Narses

Wi) HISTORY OMTEE .LATER MOM AN: EMPIRE chap.

felt, and Ms friends convinced Hm, that it was beneath the dignity
of Lis office to act in subordination to a general, and he deter-
mined to use the forces wMch he had brought to Italy according
to his own discretion. In accordance with tMs resolution he
excused Mmself repeatedly from complying with requests or
orders from Belisariiis, who at length convoked a military council
to clear up the situation. ■

At tMs council Belisarius did not at first insist upon Ms rights
as commander-in-cliief or rebuke Narses for disobedience. He
pointed out that the enemy were far from being defeated ;
Witigis had still an army of tens of thousands at Kavenna ;
the situation in Liguria was serious; Auximum with its large
and valiant garrison was still uncaptured, as well as other strong
places like Urbs Vetus. He proposed that a portion of the army
should be sent to Liguria, to the rescue of Milan, which was in
grave peril, and that the remaining forces should be em.ployed
against the Gothic fortresses south and west of the Flaminian
Way, and first of all against Auximum. Narses replied. He
contended that it was inexpedient that all the Imperial forces
should be concentrated on the two objects of Auximum and
Milan. Let Belisarius undertake these enterprises, but he
would attempt the conquest of the Aemilian province. This
would have the probable advantage of retaining the main army
of the Goths at Ravenna, so that they wmuld be imable to send
aid to the places attacked by Belisarius. But Belisarius was
opposed to any plan which involved a dissipation of forces, and
he decided to assert Ms authority. He produced a letter which
the Emperor had recently addressed to the commanders of the
troops in Italy. It was conceived in these terms :

In sending Narses our purser to Italy we do not invest
him with the command of the army. It is our wish that
Belisarius alone shall lead the whole army as seems good to
him, and it behoves you all to obey him in the interest of oiir
Stater i

In the last phrase there was a possible ambiguity of which
Narses at once took advantage, interpreting it as a reservation
limiting the duty of obedience. The plan of Belisarius, he said,
is not in the interest of the State, and therefore we are not

^ B.G. iL 18 . 28 avT!^ re hjxm ^ireffdat, d-n-avras iTrl rc^ cvjXipepoprL rfj '))iJLeTipq.
Ttokirel^ wpoaljKeL.

xvm DISSENSIONS OF ROMAN GENERALS 201

boiaiid to obey him. It may seem difficult to suppose that
Jiistiiiiaii iiiteiided to'iay down a principle , urhich logically led
. to iiiilitaiy anarchyj since it was ..open tO' every commander, to
take a different view of the wisdom of a strategic plan. Yet
we cannot ■ consider it impossible that the inseiiion of the words
ill the interest, of the State was. designed as a check ,on the
authority of the commanderdn-chief. For if the 'Emperor had
really meant to enjoin 'unconditional obedience, the phrase in
question W'as entirely unnecessary. The fact that the trusted
keeper of his privy purse should have been chosen for a military
mission lends colour to the suspicion that Justinian was dis-
satisfied with the progress of the war, and doubtful wrhether
Belisarius wns conducting it with the necessary energy. It
would be going too far to suggest that he washed to deprive
Belisarius of the undivided glory of conquering Italy, though
we are told that this was the personal object of Narses.

Belisarius was not in a position to enforce his claims, and he
had sufficient self-restraint to avoid an actual breach. Matters
were smoothed over for the time, and the co-operation of the
commanders, though it was far from cordial, continued. A
large force was despatched against Urbs Vetiis, and Belisarius,
again postponing his intention of reducing Auximum, marched
to the siege olUrbiniun, accompanied by Narses and John. But
the forces of the rival commanders did not mingle ; they encamped
separately on the eastern and western sides of the city. The
garrison of Urbinum, which is situated on a high hill at a
strenuous day’s journey from Ariminuin, refused an invitation
of Belisarius to surrender ; they had abundance of provisions and
trusted in the strength of the city. Narses, deeming the place
impregnable, considered it waste of time to remain, and, with-
drawing to Ariminum, sent John, at the head of all his forces,
against Caesena. Failing to take this place, John, wffio was
impatient of sieges, advanced against Forum Cornelii (Iniola),
wffiich he captured by surprise, and then easily subjugated the
whole Aemiliaii province.

Meanwffiile fortune played into the hands of Belisarius.
Urbinum wtis supplied by a single spring. It suddenly ran
dry, and deprived of water the Goths could only capitulate.
Narses is said to have received the new’s of this success with
deep chagrin.

202 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE cpiap.

§8. Siege and Massacfe of Milan

It was now December (a.i>. 538) ^ and Belisarius decided that
it was inopportune tben to attempt tbe siege of Auximum,
wliicli promised to, prove a dfficnlt enterprise. He left a large
force in Firmuin to protect the country against the ravages of
the garrison, and marched himself to Urbs Vetus, where pro-
visions were already running short. The place could hardly
have been taken by assault. It is a natural stronghold, requiring
no artificial fortifications, ---built on an isolated hill rising out
of hollow country. This hill, level at the top, is precipitous
below, and is surrounded by clifis of the same height, between
which and the hill itself flows a large and impassable river,
according to Procopius, entirely encircling the hill^except at one
point where the city could be approached from the cliffs. At
the present day, Orvieto is not surrounded by water. The river
Paglia flows round the northern and eastern sides of the hill,
to join the river Chiana, but on the south and west there is no
such natural moat. It is supposed that the Paglia may have
changed its course.^ Hunger was the only weapon which could
avail against a brave garrison, and the Goths, when they had
been reduced to consuming hides softened in water, surrendered
at last to Belisarius (spring, a.d. 539).

In the meantime important events had been happening
beyond the Po. Immediately after , the Goths had raised the
siege of Rome, Belisarius, in fulfilment of his promise to Datiiis,
the archbishop of Milan, had sent 1000 Isaurians and Thracians
under the command of Mundilas to Liguria (April, a.d. 538).
They went by sea from Porto to Genoa, and, crossing the Po, they
succeeded in occupying Milan, Bergamum, Comum, Hovaria,
and all the strong places of inland Liguria except Ticinum
(Pavia). On hearing the news Witigis sent his nephew Uraias to
recover Milan, and he received powerful aid from abroad.

Theodebert, grandson of Chlodwig, had succeeded his father
Theoderic as king of Austrasia in a.d. 533. Besides the
Austrasian dominion on both sides of the Rhine, with its capital
at Metz, he ruled over a portion of Aquitania and a portion of
Burgundy which had recently been conquered by his imcles. We

^ B,G, ii. 20. 1.

Cp. Hodgkin, iv. p. 338.

XVIII

SIEGE OF MILAN

203

possess a letter wliich. lie wrote to Justinian, probably in an early
stage of tlie war, offering excuses for Ms failure to send to Italy
a force of 3000 men wHch. lie had promised. ■ As he stjdes
Justinian father/’ ^ it may be inferred that the Emperor
formally adopted him as a son when he sought an assurance of
the co-operation of the Franks before the outbreak of the war.
But Theodebert was ambitious and treacherous, and his filial
relation to Justinian 'was no obstacle to his policy of playing fast
and loose between the two belligerents. At this crisis he resolved
to assist the Goths, and 10,000 Burgundians crossed the Alps
to co-operate with Uraias. He sophistically professed that he
was not violating his convention with the Emperor, because no
Franks wmre in the army ; the Burgundians, forsooth, were
acting as an independent people, without his authority.^ The
Gothic and Burgundian forces blockaded Milan, which Mundilas
held with only 300 soldiers as the rest of his force had been
distributed in the other Ligurian fortresses.^ The able-bodied
civilian inhabitants were therefore called upon to take part in
the defence.

After the relief of Ariminum, Belisarius despatched a large
army under Martin and XJliaris to the relief of Milan. These
commanders encamped on the southern bank of the Po ; they
were afraid to face the host of barbarians who were besieging
the city. Mundilas despatched a messenger, who managed to
evade the sentinels of the enemy, to plead the urgent need of
the besieged, and was sent back with promises of speedy aid,
which Martin and XJliaris made no effort to fulfil. At last, after
a delay so long that it amounted to treason to the Imperial cause,
they wTote to Belisarius, representing their forces as hopelessly
inadequate to cope with the enemy and requesting him to send
John and Justin, who were in the neighbouring province of
Aemilia, to reinforce them. Belisarius complied, but John and
Justin refused to move without the authority of Narses. Beli-
sariiis wuote to Narses, who gave the requisite order. John
proceeded to collect ships for the purpose of crossing the Po,

^ D. illustro et praecellentissimo Bregantinus (perhaps = Vergentinus,
doymio et patri lustiniano imperatore below, p. 205, n. 1).

Theodebertiis rex {Epp. Merow. et ^ Procopius, B.O. h. 12, 38.

Ear. aevi i. Epp. Austrasieaey 19). ® Marcellirius, sub 539, records that

The soldiers were to have been Theodebert devastated the Aemilian
sent to the help of the patrician province and i.)lundered Genoa.

204 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

but before Iiis preparatioES were completed be fell ill. Thus
delay ensued upon, delay, and meanwhile the unhappy inhabit-
aiits of Milan were starving. ; .When they were reduced to feeding
on dogs and mice, Gothic envoys waited on Miiiidilas, inviting
him to capitulate on the condition that he and all Ms soldiers
should have their lives spared. He was ready to accept these
terms if they would agree to spare the inhabitants. But the
Goths, who were infuriated against the disloyal Ligurians, did
not conceal their determination to wreak a bloody vengeance.
Mundilas therefore refused, but his hands were soon forced.
He attempted to induce the soldiers to make a desperate sally
against the foe, but, worn as they were by the sufferings of the
siege, they had not the courage to embrace so forlorn a hope.
They coinpelled their leader to agree to the terms wLich the
Goths had proposed. •

Mundilas and the soldiers were placed in honourable captivity,
in accordance with the agreement. Milan and its inhabitants
felt the full fury of a host of savages. All the adult males,
who according to Procopius numbered 300,000, were massacred ;
all the women w^ere presented as slaves to the Burgundians. The
city itself wurs razed to the ground. It was the wealthiest and
most populous towm in Italy then, as now, and if Procopius is
near the truth in his estimate of the number of males w^ho were
slain, it must have been nearly as populous as it is to-day.^

In the long series of deliberate inhumanities recorded in the
annals of mankind, the colossal massacre of Milan is one of the
most flagrant. Historians have passed it over somewhat lightly.
But the career of Attila offers no act of war so savage as this
vengeance, carried out by the orders of the nephew of the Gothic
king. It gives us the true measure of the instincts of the
Ostrogoths, claimed by some to have been the most promising
of the German invaders of the Empire.

Eeparatus, the Praetorian Prefect of Italy, was found in
the city. He was the brother of Pope Vigilius, but tMs did
not save him. He was cut in pieces and thrown to the dogs.

^ B.Q. ii. 21. 39. The population exaggerated the number of the slain,
of modern Milan is between 600,000 For the massacre see also ConL
and 700,000 (that of Romo is over ira?*C6/?.,6\a.,andMarmsof Aventicum,
500,000). Procopius describes it (R.(?. Ghron., s.a, 538 (senator es et sacerdotes
ii. _7. 38) as the most populous cum reliquis fopulis etiam in ipsa
Italian city next to Rome. It seems sacrosancta loca inter fecti sunt), Datius
probable that he has immensely the archbishop escaped.

xvm SIEGE OF AUXIMUM 205

Cerventiniis,^ another brother, escaped to Dalmatia, and went
on to Constantinople to aimounce the calainity to Justinian. The
fall of Milan, which happened towards' the end of March ^ (a.b.
539), led to the immediate recovery of all Liguria by/ the Goths.
The news came as a heav}?* blow to Belisariiis, but it was an
irresistible proof of the unwisdom of divided military authority
by .which the Emperor himself could not fail to.be .impressed*.
Belisariiis wrote to him. ' explaining all the' circumstances, nnd
shovuiig where the blame rested. Justinian inflicted no punish-
ment on those who were in fault, ^ but he immediately recalled
Narses, and in language which wms not ambiguous confirmed
the supreme authority of Belisarius.^

§ 9. Siege and GapUine of Aitximiim (a.b. 539, May to November)

In the meanwhile Witigis, while the fate of Liguria still
remained undecided, was seriously alarmed for the safety of
Eavenna. The Eomans were firmly established at Ariminum
and Urbiniim, and he expected that at any moment Belisarius
might advance against his capital. Early in the year he resolved
to seek foreign help. He first applied to Wacho, king of the
Langobardi, who dwelled beyond the Danube. But no succour
was forthcoming from this quarter. Wacho, who was an ally
of the Emperor, did not consider it expedient to imitate the
double-dealing of the treacherous Franks. The Goths then
conceived the idea of appealing to a greater power, the king of
Persia himself. They argued, with truth, that Justinian would
not have embarked on his enterprises in the West if he had not
been secured in the East by the peace which he had concluded
with Chosroes. If they could succeed in embroiling him in a
war with Persia, it would be impossible for him to continue
the war in Italy. As the only practicable route to Persia lay
through Imperial territory, it would have been difficult to send
Gothic ambassadors. By large bribes two Ligurian priests, who
could travel without exciting suspicion, were induced to under-
take the mission, and they succeeded in reaching the court of

^ Procopius calls him Vergentinos, ® Belisarius would not allow Uliaris
B.G. ii. 21. 41. to appear in his presence, ib, ii.

^ The Heruls, who had come to

“ BM, ii. 22. 1 0 Italy with Narses, refused to remain

IjdT], when he was recalled.

206 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Chosroes and delivering a letter from Witigis. TMs appeal
was ixarclly tlie chief motive which determined Chosroes to reopen
hostilities, bnt imdonbtedly it produced its effect. It must
have impressed upon him that in considering his foreign policy
it would be wise to take account of the situation in the w^estern
Mediterranean. He resolved on war, as Witigis hoped, but Ms
operations began too late to rescue Witigis from disaster.

The report that negotiations were passing between Eavenna
and Ctesiphon reached Justinian (in June), and inclined him to
the idea of ending the Italian war by a compromise as soon as
possible, so as to set Belisarius free to take command on the
eastern frontier. He accordingly released the Gothic envoys
whom he had detained for more than a year, ^ and promised to
send ambassadors of his own to discuss peace. When these
Goths arrived in Italy, Belisarius would not allows them to proceed
to Ravenna till Witigis surrendered the Roman envoys, Peter
and Athanasius, who had been held prisoners for four years.^
The Emperor rewarded these men for their services by creating
Peter Master of Offices, and Athanasius Praetorian Prefect of
Italy.

Italy indeed needed peace. Agriculture had ceased in the
provinces devastated by war, and in Liguria and Aemilia, in
Etruria, Umbria, and Picenum the inhabitants were dying of
hunger and disease. It was said that in Picenum alone 50,000
tillers of the soil perished. Procopius noted the emaciation,
the livid colour, and the wild eyes of the people, suffering either
from want of food, or from a surfeit of indigestible substitutes
like acorn bread. Cannibalism occurred, and a ghastly story
was told of two women who lived in a lonely house near Ariminum
where they offered a night’s lodging to passers-by. They killed
seventeen of these guests in their sleep and devoured their flesh.
The eighteenth woke up as the cannibals were about to despatch
him; he forced them to confess, and slew them. Scattered

1 They had been sent to Con- four weeks, if they travelled quickly at

stantinople during the siege of Rome, the rate of 75 kils. a day. To reach
See above, p. 191. Ctesiphon meant five or six weeks more,

2 We may infer from B.G. ii. 22. so that they might have arrived about
25 that this happened at the end the middle of May. Thus Justinian
of June or beginning of July 539. could have heard of their arrival and
Kerbs {op. cit 31 sqq.) calculates that released the Gothic envoys before the
the Gothic embassy to Ctesiphon end of June. For the distances of
started in March from Ravenna. They Ravenna from Constantinople via
could reach the Bosphorus in about Aquileia see below, p. 225.

XVIII

SIEGE OF-AUXIMUM

207

over the country-sides were the unburied corpses of those who
had died' while, they sought with feeble hands .to, tear blades of
grass from the ground. The Imperial.. armies' suffered little,
for they received a constant supply of provisions by sea from
Calabria and Sicily. .. ■ , .

Belisariiis in the meantime prosecuted his plans. He con-
sidered it essential to capture Auximum and Paesulae before he
advanced upon Ravenna. Placing Martin and John at Dertona
(Tortona) to defend the line of the Po against Uraias, he sent
Justin and Cyprian to blockade Faesulae, and undertook himself
the most important of his tasks, the siege of Auximum. These
two sieges occupied more than six months (April to October or
November, A.r). 639).^

The army on the Po succeeded, as Belisarius anticipated, in
hindering Uraias from marching to the aid of Faesulae. The
two hosts, reluctant to risk a trial of strength, remained immobile
on the banks of the river, till a new enemy appeared upon the
scene. The Franks regarded the calamities of Italy as an
opportunity for themselves and were as perfidious towards the
Goths as towards the Empire ; and Theodebert himself, at the
head (it is said) of 100,000 men, descended from the Alps for the
plunder and destruction alike of Goths and Imperialists, with both
of whom they had recently sworn alliance. Procopius describes
their equipment. There were a few mounted spearmen in attend-
ance on the king, the rest were infantry armed with a sword, a
shield, and an axe. The axe (francisca), solid and double-edged,
with a very short wooden handle, was a weapon for hurling not for
wielding. At the first onset of battle a shower of axes fell upon
the foe, shattering shields and killing men.

The Goths, fondly imagining that Theodebert was coming to
their aid in fulfilment of his promises, rejoiced to hear of his
approach. At Ticinum, where a bridge spanned the Po, at its
confluence with the stream of Ticinus, the Goths who guarded
it gave the Franks every assistance to cross the river. As soon
as they held the bridge, the invaders threw off the mask. They
seized the women and children of the Goths, slaughtered them,
and threw their bodies into the river. Procopius saw a religious

^ Co7it Marcell,, s.a., states that Milan. The sieges must have begun
these cities were taken in 539 aepE in April or May, cp. B.O. xxii. 1,
mo ^ meme, but erroneously records and so the seventh month would be
their capture before the fall of October-lSfoveinber.

208 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

sigBificance in this act. '‘ These barbarians,’' he says, " though
converted to Christianity retain, most of hheir old beliefs and
still practise human saerifices.” Having crossed the Po, the
Franks advanced southward towards Dertona, near which Uraias
and his army were encamped not ;far from the Roman camp.
The Cxoths w’^ent forth to welcome their allies, and were received
by a shower of axes. ■ They.- turned in headlong flight, rushed
wildly through the camp, of the astonished Romans, and pursued
the road to Ravenna. 'The Romans imagined that Belisarius
must have: suddenly arrived and surprised the Gothic camp;
and issuing forth to meet him they found themselves confronted
by the immense army of the Franks. They wwe forced to fight,
but were easily routed and retired to Tuscany. :

The victors were in possession of trro deserted camps, supplied,
however, with pro visions. The food did not go far among so
many, and in the desolated country they foimd no subsistence
but oxen anti the water of the To. It is satisfactory to know
that they paid a heavy price for their rapacity. Dysentery
broke out, and large numbers— a third of the host, it was re-
ported— died. The survivors were bitter against their king for
leading them into a place of desolation to perish of himger and
disease. Then a letter arrived from Belisarius, reproaching
Theodebert for his treachery, menacing him with the anger of
the Emperor, and advising him to attend to his domestic affairs
instead of running into danger by interfering in matters wdiich
did not concern him. The barbarians retreated ingloriously
across the Alps.^

This episode had little influence on the course of the war.
All the efforts of the Imperial forces w^ere concentrated on the
blockades of Auximiim and Faesulae. The flower of the Gothic
army w^as holding Auximum and was resolved to hold it to the
end. When the provisions began to give out, the commander
of the garrison sent an urgent message to Ravenna, imploring
Witigis to send an army to relieve them. Immediate help -was
promised, but nothing was done. Time wore on, the garrison
was sorely pressed by hunger, and too careful a watch w^as kept
to allow any one to steal out of the town. But the GotLs
managed to bribe a soldier named Buxcentins, w^ho was keeping
guard at mid-day in an isolated spot near the avails, to carry a
^ The retreat gave Justinian the pretext for assuming the title Francicus,

XVIII

CAPTURE OF AUXIMUM

209

letter to Eaveima* Burceiitiiis executed tlie errand, and Witigis
again sent l)a,.ck good words wHcli,, were read aloud to tie
garrison, and encouraged 'them to hold out. As no help came,
they again employed the services of. the traitor and informed the
king that t1iey would be compelled to surrender within five days.

Belisarins meanwhile had repeatedly urged them to siiiTender
on favourable terms, and knowing that they were starving he
was puzzled at their refusal to ■ comply. A Slavonic, soldier,
hidden in a bush for the purpose, succeeded in capturing alive
a Goth who had crept out of thegity at dawndo gather' grass.
The prisoner disclosed the treachery of Burceiitius, and. Beli-
sariiis delivered liim to his comrades to do with. Mm what they
would. Tliey burned Mm alive in sight of the walls.

The chief water-supply of Aiiximimi was derived from a huge
cistern, built in a rocky place outside the wulis, so that men
had to come out of the city in order to fill their water jars.
Belisarins sent some Isaurians to attempt to destroy the cistern,
but the masonry resisted all their efforts. Then he poisoned the
spring by throwing in quicklime with dead animals and noxious
herbs. But there was another small well inside the city, and,
though sadly insufficient for their needs, it enabled the loyal
Goths to postpone surrender.

The end was brought about by the capitulation of the starving
defenders of Faesnlae. The captives were brought to Auximum
and paraded in front of the walls, and this sight determined the
garrison, convinced at last that they had nothing to hope from
Kavenna, to follow tlie example of Faesnlae. The terms arranged
were that they should give up half of their possessions to be
divided among the besiegers, and should pass into the service
of the Emperor. They camiot be reproached for having accepted
these conditions. Their king had basely left them to their fate.
He had professed to regard Auximum as the key of Eaveiina,
but such was his cow’-ardice that he could not bring himself to
send to its relief any portion of the considerable army which
was idly protecting his capital.

§ 10. Fall of Ravenna (a.d. 540, Spring)

Auximum fell in October or November and Belisarins lost
no time in preparing an advance upon Ravenna. New forces

VOL. II p

210 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

had just arrived from Dalmatian and these he ordered to guard
the northern bank of the Po, while another contingent was
sent to patrol the southern. The purpose of these dispositions
was to prevent food stores from being sent down the river from
Liguria. The Imperial command of the sea effectively hindered
any attempts to supply the city from elsewhere.

The one thing that Belisarius had now to fear was that the
Franks might again descend into Italy and again aid the Goths
as they had aided them at Milan. When he learned that a
Frank embassy was coming to Ravenna, he sent ambassadors
to Witigis. The Frank proposal was that Goths and Franks
should make common cause, and, when they had driven the
Roman invaders from Italy, should divide the peninsula between
them. The Imperial envoys warned the Goths against enter-
taining the insidious offer of a people whose rapacity was only
equalled by their treachery. Their rapacity was proved by the
way they had dealt with the Burgundians and Thuriiigians ;
their treachery the Goths knew to their own cost by the events
of a few months ago. Witigis and his counsellors decided that
it would be wiser to come to terms with the Emperor than to
trust such a dangerous ally as Theodebert, and the Frank
envoys were sent empty aw’^ay. Hostilities were suspended,
and negotiations opened with Belisarius, who, hovrever, did
not relax his precautions against the introduction of pro-
visions into Ravenna. He even bribed some one to set fire
to the public corn store in the city— at the secret suggestion,
it was said, of the queen Matasuntha. Some of the Goths
ascribed the conflagration to treachery, others to lightning ;
the one theory suggested enemies among themselves, the other
an enemy in heaven.

Uraias in the meantime was preparing to come to the aid
of liis uncle with 4000 men, most of whom he had taken from
the garrisons which held the forts of the Cottian Alps. But
John and Martin hurried westward, seized the forts, and captured
the wives and children of the Goths. On hearing that their
families were in the hands of the Romans, the soldiers of Uraias
deserted him and w^ent over to John ; and Uraias was forced
to remain inactive in Liguria.

Two senators, Domnicus and Maximin, now arrived from
Constantinople, bearing the Emperor's instructions for the

XVIII

211

FALL OF RAVENNA

conclusion of peace. The menace of Persia inclined Justinian
to giant more: lenient terms than, the military situation seemed
to warrant. , He proposed a territorial division, of Italy. All
the lands north of the Po should-, be retained by Witigis, all the
lands south of the Po should be- retained , by -the Emperor. The
royal treasury of Eavenna should ' be - divided ' equally between
the two contracting powers. Witigis and the Goths were sur-
prised by a proposal which was far more favourable than they
had looked for, and they accepted it without hesitation. But it
did not please Belisarius. He saw within his reach a complete
victory to compensate for the toils and anxieties of five weary
years. He had dethroned and led captive the king of the
Vandals ; he was determined to dethrone and lead captive the
king of the Ostrogoths. When the ambassadors returned from
Eavenna to his camp and asked him to ratify by his signature
the treaty of peace, he declined. As his refusal w'as severely
criticised by some of the generals as an act of disobedience to
the Emperor’s decision, he summoned a military council and
asked those xjresent whether they approved of the division of
ItatyjOr whether they deemed it practicable to conquer it entirely.
All the officers were unanimous in approving the terms which
the Emperor had dictated, and Belisarius required them to
put in waiting their opinion that nothing would be gained
by continuing the war, so that he should be exonerated
from blame if future events w^ere to prove that it would have
been wiser to carry to completion the overthrow of the Gothic
Idngdom.^

But the refusal of the commander-in-chief to sign the treaty
had already produced an unfavourable impression at Ravenna.
Witigis suspected that the negotiations were a trap, and refused
to execute the agreement unless Belisarius signed it and gave
them a sworn guarantee of good faith. Famine meanwhile was
doing its -work, and the discontent of the Goths with their
incompetent king reached a climax.

Then a remarkable idea occurred — we do not know from
what quarter the suggestion came— to the men of w'^eight among
the Goths. Why not revert to the political condition of Italy

^ Procopius curiously says that i}£r$€Ls), though he had just recorded
Belisarius was pleased with the {ib, iv.) his vexation at the conditions
opinion of the generals {B.G, ii. 29. 16 prescribed by Justinian.

21.2 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

as it existed hehte the, days , of Theoderic, before the days of
Odovacar ? The regime of Witigis had; discredited Ostrogothic
rojxalty. and they would , feeL no repugnance to submitting to
the direct authority of a western Emperor ^ residing at Eonie
or Eavenna, if that Emperor were Belisarius, whom they deeply
respected both as a soldier and as a just man. They entertained
no doubts that he wmild eagerly accept the offer of a throne.
They did not know his uncompromising loyalty or suspect
that there was no role that seemed more thoroughly detestable
to him. than the role of a usurper. He had once taken an express
and solemn oath that he would neyer aspire to the throne so
long as Justinian was alive. But when messengers of the Goths
privately sounded him on the plan he professed to welcome it
with pleasure. For he saw in it a means of bringing Ms work
to a speedy and triumphant conclusion. When these clandestine
negotiations came to the knowledge of Witigis, he resigned
himself to the situation and sent a secret message to Belisarius
urging him to a.ccept the off er.^

Belisarius then summoned a meeting of the generals and
invited the presence of the two Imperial ambassadors. He
asked them whether they would approve if, without striking
another blow, he should succeed in recovering the whole of
Italy, in taking captive WTtigis, and seizing all his treasure.
The assembly agreed that it would be a magnificent achievement,
and urged him to accomplish it if he could. Having in this way
protected himself against misinterpretation of his motive in
pretending to yield to the Gothic proposal, he sent confi.dential
messengers to Eavenna to announce his definite acceptance.
Official envoys were sent back to the camp, nominally to con-
tinue the discussion of peace terms, but privately to receive
from the commander pledges of Ms good faith. He gave them
sworn pledges on all matters save his wullingness to accept the
purple ; on that point he deferred his oath till he should stand
in the presence of Witigis and the Gothic magnates. The envoys

^ B.G. ii, 29. 18 ^oLcriX^a Trjs that Justinian had lost his two best
€crrr€;}ias BeXLcrdpLou di>£nretv Gyv(ocrav. generals, Sittas who had been killed,

^ Martroye [E Occident, p. 401) and Belisarius who had left his service
argues that this intrigue had been to be the sovran of Italy. Martroye is
arranged in consultation with Chos- mistaken in supposing that the Gothic
roes. His reason is that in autumn proposal was made to Belisarius at
539 the Armenian envoys who urged about the same time ; this cannot have
Chosroes to declare war pointed out been earlier than Jan. or Feb. 540.

xvin

FALL OF IM VENN A

213

were satisfied ; tliey could not imagine tliat he would reject
the Imperial diadem.

He then made his arrangements for entering Ravenna. He
dispersed a part of his army^ under the coininand of those leaders
who were ill-disposed towards himself — John, Aratiiis, his brother
Narses, and Bessas — to various destinations, on the pretext that
it was difficult to provide the requisite commissariat for the
whole army in one place. He sent his fleet laden with corn
and other foods to the port of Classis, to fill the starving mouths
at Ravenna. Then he advanced -with his army and entered
the city in May a.d. 540.^ It is disappointing that the historian
does not describe the scene in which Belisarius undeceived the
Gothic king and nobles as to his intentions. We are only told
that he kept Witigis in honourable captivity, and that he allowed
all the Goths who lived in the cis-Padane provinces to return
to their homes. He seized the treasures of the palace, but the
Goths were allow^ed to retain all their private property, and
plundering was strictly forbidden.

Most of the garrisons of the strong places north of the Po
voluntarily surrendered,^ apparently under the impression that
Italy was to be ruled by Belisarius. Ticmum, which was the head-
quarters of Uraias, and Verona, which was held by Ildibad, were
the chief exceptions. When the Gothic notables of the northern
provinces realised that Belisarius had made the great refusal ’’
and was about to return to Constantinople, they proceeded to
Ticinum and urged Uraias to assume the royal insignia and
place himself at their head to fight a desperate battle for freedom.
Uraias was ready to fight, but he declined to step into the place
of Witigis ; the nephew of such an unlucky ruler would not,
he declared, have the necessary prestige. He advised them to
choose as their king Ildibad, a man of conspicuous energy and
valour, and a nephew of Theudis the king of the Visigoths.
Accordingly Ildibad, at the request of the Gothic leaders, came
from Verona and sufltered himself to be proclaimed king. But
he persuaded his followers to make one more effort to induce
Belisarius to recall his decision. A deputation waited on the
commander, who -was making ids preparations to leave Ravenna.

^ Agnillus, Lib. ponL p. 101. of Venetia are expressly mentioned.

Caesena, west of Aiiminum, tad held

2 Tervisium (Treviso) and the forts out till the fall of Eavenna.

214 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

They upbraided him, with justice, for having broken faith.
But reproaches and enticements produced no effect. Belisarius
told them definitely , that ho would never assume the Imperial
name in JiistiBian’s lifetime. Soon afterwards he left the shores
of Italy, taking with him the dethroned king and queen, many
leading Goths, and the royal treasure.^

The impregnable fidelity of Belisarius to Justinian’s throne,
under a temptation which few men in his position would have
resisted, is the fact which has been chiefly emphasised by
historians in describing these tortuous transactions. But his
innocence of criminal disloyalty in thought or deed does not
excuse his conduct. He was guilty of a flagrant violation of
his promises to the Goths, and he was guilty of gross disobedience
to the Emperor’s orders. It was not the business of the com-
mander-in-chief to decide the terms of peace ; that was entirely
a question for the Emperor. We can understand his unwilling-
ness to allow the complete victory, which seemed within his
grasp, to escape him ; but it would be difficult to justify the
chicanery which he employed at first in protracting the negotia-
tions, and then in deceiving the enemy by pretended disloyalty
to his master. Nor was his policy justified by success. It did
not lead automatically to the complete conquest of Italy and
the extension of Imperial authority to the Alps. When he
sailed for Constantinople, he l^t behind him. in the provinces
north of the Po, enemies who had not submitted and a new
Ostrogothic Idng who was bound by no covenant. A resumption
of hostilities could not fail to ensue. If the peace which Justinian
offered to the Goths had been concluded, and Witigis had re-
mained as the recognised ruler of trans-Padane Italy, bound to
the Empire by treaty, the arrangement could not indeed have
been final, but the Emperor was justified in calculating that it
would ensure for some years to come the tranquillity of Italy,
and enable him to throw all Hs forces into the imminent struggle
with Persia.

It is as little surprising then that when the victorious general
disembarked at Constantinople with a captive Idng in his train,
the Emperor should have given him a cold reception and denied
him the honours of a triumph, as that the people, dazzled by
the distinction of his captives and the richness of his spoil,
1 Probably in June.

XVIII

FALL OF FA VENNA

and measuring his deserts by these spectacular results/ should
have attributed the Imperial attitude to jealousy. Though the
enemies of Belisariiis did all they could to poison Justinian’s
mind with suspicions^ he can hardly have had . serious doubts
of Ms general’s loyalty, yet it must have been far from agreeable
to him to know that a subject had been given the opportunity
of rejecting the oher of a throne. But, apart from this, it must
be admitted that he was justified in refusing a triumph to a
generah who, whatever Ms services had been, had deliberately
frustrated Ms master’s policy. That the anxiety of the Emperor
to hasten the departure of Belisarius from Italy was not entirely
due to the urgent need of Ms services in the East, may be inferred
from the fact that he was not sent against the Persians till the
ensuing spring.

The Gothic prisoners were honourably treated. Witigis
received the title of patrician and an estate on the confines of
Persia.^ He survived Ms dethronement for two years.

It is naturally to be assumed that, as the provinces of Italy
were gradually recovered, measures were taken for securing the
civil admimstration. In some cases probably the Italians who
served under the Goths were allowed to continue in their posts
as governors of provinces, in others new men must have been
appointed. But it was also necessary, perhaps even before the
capture of Eome, to set up a central financial administration.^
Sicily had been reorganised after its submission to Belisarius
and committed to the government of a Praetor, who had the

^ The populace indeed were not discussed by Marfcroye, who rejects the
permitted to see the treasures. They explanation of Serruys, thinks that
were exhibited to the senators in the the date meant is 540, not 541, and
Palace, B.G. iii. i. 3. It is possible explains the ceremony as a solemn
that the victory over Witigis was entry, distinct from a triumph, in
celebrated in the following year when W-hiGii Belisarius took jjart. See
Justinian made a triumphal entry Mim. de la SoOi des Antiqiiairea de
into Constantinople on August 12, France, 1912, p. 25 (the article is
through the Charisian Gate. The only known to me through Brehier’s
ceremony is briefly described in notice in Rev. Hist, ci. Sept. -Dec.
Constantine Porphyrog., App. ad 1912, p. 325).

libr. prim, de Cer. 497, a passage ^ Get. §313; Hist. Miso.

evidently taken or abridged from xvi. p. 107 admin istrationem ilU
Peter the Patrician. The Persarum tribuit terminos. It is not

motive of the triumph may b^-vo 'v'diat this n^

been the success of BeHsarius in ® Wot?. 75 (Dec. 537) seems to imply
Mesopotamia hi capturing the fort that a comes s. patrimonii per Italiam
of Sisaurana. See Serruys, in Revue had akeady been appointed. He
des etudes grecqiies, xx. 240 dealt with the patrimonial estates

1907. The question has also been in Sicily as well as in Italy.

216 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

responsibility for military as well as: for civil affairs.^ Amid the
din of arms tliese administrative measures occupied little atten-
tion, and they were soon to '.be upset or endangered by the
renewal of \var throughout the whole peninsula.

§ III Boethius, Cassiodoms, and Benedict

The power of the Ostrogoths was not yet broken. They were
soon to regain much that they had lost, and under a' new warrior
Idng to wage a war which was well-nigh fatal to the ambitions
of Justinian. But before we proceed to the second chapter of
the reconqiiest of Italy, we may glance at the peaceful wmrk of
three eminent Italians "who shed lustre on the Ostrogothic
period, and secured a higher place in the eyes of posterity than
the kings and warriors who in their own lifetime possessed the
stage.

It is hardly too much to say that Boethius had a more genuine
literary talent, than any of his contemporaries, either Latin or
Greek. We have seen how he composed in prison the golden
volume ’’ 2 which has immortalised him, the Consolation of
Philosophy. It was one of the best known and most widely
read books throughout the Middle Ages, notwithstanding the
fact that it ignores Christianity,^ though its Platonism has a
Christian colouring. It was translated into Anglo-Saxon by
King Alfred, and into English by Chaucer.^

The Consolation of Philosophy has indeed a considerable charm,
which is increased by the recollection of the circumstances in
which it was composed. A student who, maintaining indeed a
lukewarm connection with politics, had spent most of his days in
the calm atmosphere of his library, where he expected to end his
life, suddenly found himself in the confinement of a dismal

^ Kov, 75 (Dec. 537). This law
provides that the Quaestor at Con-
stantinople should be the court of
api>eal for Sicilian lawsuits.

2 “ Not unworthy of the leisure
of Plato or Tully,” Gibbon, iv. p. 215.
On Boethius cp. Ebert, Gesch. der
LitL des Miltelalters, i, 485 sqq:. ; H.
E. Stewart, Boethius.

® Stewart {op. cit. 106 sqq.) would
explain this by the view that the

work “ is intensely artificial.” The
verses, he says, are smooth and cold.
There is “nothing that suggests a
heart beating itself out against the
bars of its prison.” Thus the book
does not express the personal beliefs
of the author, who composed simply
as a diversion, to pass the time.

^ And after the Mddle Ages by
Queen Elizabeth. There were early
translations in the principal European
languages.

XVIII

BOETHIUS

217

prison with death impending' over him. There is thus in his
philosophical .meditations': an' ■ earnestnc^ss, born' ,of a real need
of consolation, .while ' at the. -same time there, is .a pervading
serenity. Poems, sometimes lyrical, sometimes elegiac, break the
discussion at inter'vals,^' like organ chants in a religious service.

The inoblem' of the treatise^' is^ to ■.explain the' unjust con-
fusion ’’ ^yhich exists in the world, the eternal question how
the fact that the evil win often the rewards of virtue (pretium,
sceleris—diadema) and the good suffer the penalties of crime,
can be reconciled with a deus, rector miiixdi.’’ If I could
believe, , says ' Boethius, that all things were determined . by
chance and hazard, I should not be so perplexed. In one place
he defines the relation of fate to the Deity in the sense that fate
is a sort of instrument by which God regulates the world accord-
ing to fixed rules. In other words, fate is the law of phenomena
or nature, under the control of the Supreme Being, which he
identifies xvith the Summmn Bonum or highest good. His
discussion of the subject is not very illuminating — ^did it really
satisfy him ?

But the metaphysical discussion does not interest the student
of literature so much as the setting of the piece and things said
incidentally.^ Boethius imagines his couch surrounded by the
Muses of poetry, who suggest to him accents of lamentation.
Suddenly there appears at Ms head a strange lady of lofty visage.
There was marvellous fluidity in her stature ; she seemed some-
times of ordinary human height, and at the next moment her
head touched heaven, or penetrated so far into its recesses that
her face was lost to the vision. Her eyes too were unnatural,
brilliant and transparent beyond the power of human eyes,

^ This form of mixed ^’'erse and passes to the Summum Bonum ; m
l^rose was originated by the Greek Bk. iv. Philosophia justifies God’s
Cynic Menippus, and in later litera- government; Bk. v. deals with free
tiire had been employed by Varro, will.

Petronius, Seneca, and more recently ® It is interesthig to notice that
by Martiarms Capella the Neoplatonlst Dante’s famous verses
(fifth century) in his allegorical work Xessun maggior dolore

“ On the nuptials of Philology and Cbe ricordarsi del tempo felice

Mercury, and the seven liberal arts.” Xeila miseria.

It was probably this work , that come from Boethius (ii. iv). It has
suggested the form to Boethius. been pointed out that the , idea

- Book i. contains the story of the occurs in Synesius, Bp. 57 (Sandys,
writer’s personal wrongs, %vhich he BzM. of Glasaical Scholarship^ i, 243,
relates to Philosoi;>hia ; Bk, ii. a n. 2). Dante assigned to Boethius
discussion on Fortune ; Bk. iii. a place in the Fourth Heaven.

218 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

of fresli colour and iinqiiencliable •vigour. And yet at tlie same
time slie seemed so ancient, of days “ that she could not be taken
for a woman of our age.’- Her garments were of the finest
threads, woven by some secret art into an indissoluble texture,
woven, as she told Boethius, by her own hands. And on this
robe there was a certain mist of neglected antiquity, the sort
of colour that statues have which have been exposed to smoke.
On the lower edge of the robe there was the Greek letter 11 (the
initial of Upafcrifcj], Practical Philosophy), from which stairs
were worked leading upwards to the letter @ {%empririKrj, Pure
Philosophy). And her garment had the marks of violent usage,
as though rough persons had tried to rend it from her and carried
a-way shreds in their hands. The lady was Philosophia ; she
bore a sceptre and parchment rolls. She afterwards explained
that the violent persons who had rent her robe were the Epi-
cureans, Stoics, and other late schools ; they succeeded in tearing
away patches of her dress, fancying severally that they had
obtained the whole garment. Philosophia’s first act is to drive
out the Muses, whom she disdainfully terms “ theatrical strum-
pets,” and she remarks that poetry “ accustoms the minds of
men to the disease but does not set them free.” ^

A striking feature of the Consolatio is the interspersion of
the prose dialogue with poems at certain intervals, which,
lil^e choruses in Greek tragedy, appertain to the preceding
argument. Thus the work resembles in form Dante’s Vita
Nuova, where the sonnets gather up in music the feelings
occasioned by the narrated events. These poems, which betray
the influence of Seneca’s plays, ^ have all a charzn of their own,
and metres of various lands are gracefully employed.

One poem, constructed with as much care as a somiet,^ sings of
the “ love that moves the sun and stars,”

hano reruna series ligat
terras ac pelagus regens
et caelo imperitans amor,

an idea familiar to modern readers from the last line of Dante’s
Divina Gommedia, but which is as old as Empedocles. As

^ Ed. Peiper, j)* ^ • Mmiivmnqm of passages whicli contain excerpts
mentes [7nusae] cissuefackint morbo, from or echoes of Seneca’s tragedies.
non liberanL s consists of thirty

. lines thus arranged, 4:-i-4 + 4-f3 =

2 Peiper in his edition gives a list 4 +4 +4 -1-3.

XVIII

BOETHIUS

219

aa, example'of ;M*s iiietricaI devices-' take,, two lines of a stanza,
where tlie aiitlior is return of natoe to itself by

a caged bird, ■wliieli, when it beholds the greenwood once more,
spurns the sprinlded crumbs —

silYas taiitum maesta reqnirit,
silvas tantum voce susurrat.

Immediately after this poem Boethius proceeds : '' Ye too, 0
creatures of earth ! albeit in a vague image, yet do ye dream of
your origin’’ (vos quoque, 0 terrena animalia! tenui licet imagine
vestrum tamen principium somniatis).

The delicate feeling of Boethius for metrical effect may be
illustrated by the poem on the protracted toils of the siege of
Troy and the labours of Hercules. It is written in Sapphic
metre, but the short fourth lines are omitted until the end. The
effect of this device is that the mind and voice of the reader
continue to travel without relief or metrical resting-place until
all the labours are over and heavenly rest succeeds in the stars
of the concluding and only Adonius—

superata teiius
sidera donat.

If the Consolation had never been written, Boethius would
still have had his place in the list of men who have done service
to humanity. Possessing the multifarious learning characteristic
of the time, he devoted himself especially to the philosophy of
the great masters, Plato and Aristotle, and at an early age he
conceived the ambitious idea of translating into Latin, and
writing commentaries on, all their works.^ Of this task of a
lifetime he succeeded only in completing the logical works of
Aristotle, but these translations were of capital importance, in
keeping alive the study of logic throughout the Middle Ages, ^
and he raised the question as to the nature of genera and species,
which was to be fought out towards the end of that period in
the debate between the NominaHsts and the Eealists. His
polymathy carried him into other fields. He translated (perhaps)

^ epfj/qveias, ii. 2. lation of the Isagoge of Porphyry to

2 We have also his version and Aristotle’s Categories was a vulgar
exegesis of the ]lt 7 u eppLrjvelaSf in handbook in the Middle Ages. He
two forms (one elementary, the other also wrote a commentary on Cicero’s
for advanced students). His trans- Toxica,

220 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the Geometry of Euclid,^ wrote treatises on arithmetic and music,
and even ventured into the region of theological doctrine.^
Though he was a professing Christian, he did not yield to
Syinmachiis, the illustrious pagan ancestor of his wife, in
entliiisiasni for the ancients, and his aim was to keep alive in
Italy the quickening influence of Greek science.® Writing in
the year of his consulship (a.d. 510), he said, '' The cares of office
hinder me from devoting all my time to these studies (in logic),
but I think it may be considered of some public utility to instruct
my fellow-citizens in the subject.’’ ^

The other eminent man of letters, who shed a certain lustre
on Ostrogothic Italy, Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator,^ was
of inferior fibre to Boethius in literary taste as well as in personal
character, but he was no less genuinely interested in intellectual
pursuits, and posterity owes him an even greater debt. The
Cassiodori, who seem originally to have come from Syria, acquired
an estate at Scyllacium (Squillace) on the eastern coast of Bruttii,
The great-grandfather of Cassiodorus successfully defended this
province and Sicily against raids of the Vandals.® His grand-
father, a friend of Aetius, was employed on an embassy to the
Huns,^ and we have seen how his father filled high posts under
Odovacar, and Theoderic. Born himself not long before
Theoderic’s invasion, he was a boy when his father became
Praetorian Prefect® and employed him as a legal assistant in
his bureau. He won the king’s notice by a panegyric which he
pronounced on some public occasion, and was appointed to the
high office of Quaestor of the Palace at an unusually early age.^
In this post he conducted the official correspondence of the

^ He certainly wrote an original
treatise De geometricL It is doubtful
whether the extant translation of
Eticiid ascribed to him is really his.

^ De irinitate, and one or two other
tracts. It has been supposed that
they w^ere -written for a literary
society which met every week to read
and discuss papers ; see Stewart, op.
cit p. 132.

® Cp. Cass. Var. i. 45 (letter of
Theoderic, a.d. 509-510) quascumque
disciplinas vel artes fecunda Graecia
per singulos viros edklit, te uno auctore
patrio sennone Roma suscepit. Here
his various literary activities are
enumerated. Ennodius addressed
Boethius as an indefatigable student

quern in annis puerilibus , . . itidusirki
fecit antiquwn {Epp. vii. 13).

^ Comm, in Arist. Oat. ii. Praef.
(Migne, F.L. Ixiv. 201).

® His contemporaries called him
Senator. The facts known about his
family and the dates of his career
are summarised by Mommsen in the
Prooemium to his edition. On his
literary worli see Hodgkin, Letters of
Cassiodorus ; Sandys, History of
Classical Scholarship, i. 244 sqq.

® Yar. i. 4. Above, voL i. p. 258.

^ Ib.

® About A.D. 501.

® In his early twenties. His
Quaestorship fails betw'een the years
507 and 511.

XVIII

■CASSIODORUS 221

kingj and in tlie composition of State documents lie found
congenial employment for Ms rhetorical talent. After .he ..laid
down this office (a.d. Sll), he seems to have taken no part in
' public a;ff airs .{except in the ;year of , his: consulship, a.d. 514)
till the, close of Theoderic’s reign, w'hen he, was appointed Master
of Offi.ees.^ He continued to hold. this dignity in the first years of
the .following reign, and after an interval ■ of retirement.^, he
became .Praetorian Prefect, and remained in that -post during the
stormy years which followed, content to play the ignoble
role of a time-server, apparently as loyal to Theodahad as he
had been to Amalasuntha,^ and on Theodahad’s fall turning
without hesitation to the rising sun of Witigis. But we have
every reason to believe that throughout his career he did not
waver in a sincere conviction that Italy was better ofi under
Ostrogothic government than she would have been under the
control of Constantinople. It is possible that he retired from
public life before the capture of Eavemia, but while he was still
Prefect, he published (a.d. 537) a collection of the official letters
and State papers, which he had composed during his three
ministries.^ This collection is a mine of information for the
administration and condition of Ostrogothic Italy, and we have
to thank perhaps the literary vanity of Cassiodorus for the
ample knowledge that we possess of Theoderic’s policy ; but
it bears all the signs of having been carefully expurgated. As
the work was published when the issue of the war was uncertain,
he consulted his own interests by cutting out anything that
could offend either the Emperor or the Goths, and it is probable
that many documents which would clear up some of our uncer-
tainties as to the relations between Eavemia and Constantinople
have been omitted altogether.

Few rhetorical compositions, and perhaps no public documents,
offer greater difficulties to the reader when he attempts to arrive

^ About A.D. 523-524. In this post
he also fulfilled many of the duties of
Quaestor (ej). ix. 25).

2 A.d. 527-533.

2 In his Oration on the marriage
of Witigis, he condemns Amalasuntha
for her education of Athalaric (p.

473) : fas fuit illam sub pietatis
excusatione, peccare.

^ The Variae thus fall into three

chronological groups. (1) quaestoriae,
507-511 = Books i.-iv. ; {2) maguteriae,
523-527 = Books v. (exceipt last two
letters, a.d. 511), viil, ix. 1-14; (3)
praefectoriae, 533-537 eBooks ix., 15-
25, X., xi., xii. Books vi. and vii
contain Formulae for admission to
various offices of state. In 540 he
added to this collection as Book xiii.
a treatise De auima.

® Gp. I^Iommsen, loc. cit. p. xxii.

222 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

at the plain fact which the author intends to convey. '' It is
ornament alone/’ he says in his Preface, '' that distinguishes
the learned from the unlearned/’ and, true to this maxim of
decadent rhetoric, he obscures the simplest and most trivial state-
ments in a cloud of embellishments. But to appreciate his inflated
style we must remember that he was, after all, only improving
upon what had been, since Diocletian, the traditional style of
the Imperial chancery. We have innumerable constitutions of
the fourth and fifth centuries, in which the vices of adornment
and contorted phraseology make it a laborious task to discover
the meaning, Cassiodorus exerted his ingenuity and command
of language in elaborating this sublime style, always frigid, but
ludicrously inappropriate to legal documents and State papers.

In his later years Cassiodorus betook himself to Ms ancestral
estate at SquiUace,^ and devoted the rest of a long life to religion
and literature. He became a monk and founded two monasteries,
one, up in the Mils at Castellum, a hermitage for those who
desired solitary austerity, the other, built beside the fish-ponds
of Ms own domain and hence called Yivariim, for monks who
were content to live in the less strict conditions of a monastic
society. At Vivarium, where he lived himself, Cassiodorus
introduced a novelty ^ which led to fruitful results for posterity.
He conceived the idea of occupying the abundant leisure of the
brethren with the task of multiplying copies of Latin texts.
There was a chamber known as the scriptorium or " writing-
room” in the monastery, in wMch those monks who had a
capacity for intellectual labour, used to copy both pagan and
Christian books, working at night by the light of self-filling
" mechanical lamps.” It is well known that the preservation
of our heritage of Latin literature is mainly due to the labours
of monastic copyists. The originator of the idea was Cassiodorus.
His example was adopted in other religious establishments, and
monastic libraries came to be a regular institution.

^ There is a charming description two Italian deacons (Mansi, ix. 357)
of the situation and amenities of the seems to imply that he was at Con-
town of Sqniilace in Var. xii. 15. stantinople about 550. Cp. Sund-
After the capture of Ravenna in wall, ^6 A p. 156.

639 he seems to have gone to Con-
stantinople and lived there for about ^ It had indeed been anticipated in
fifteen years, returning to Italy after the monastery of St. Martin of Tours,
the final conquest of Italy by Narses. where young monks had practised
At least the reference to him in a the copying of MSS. (Sulpicius
letter of Vigilius excommunicating Severus, Vita S, Mart vii.).

XVIII

223

CASSIODORUS

Most of the works of Cassiodorus Have come down to ns.
The great exception is his History of the Goths, in which
he attempted to reconstruct a historical past for the Gothic
race.^ Starting with the two false assumptions that the Goths
were identical on one hand with the Getae and on the other
hand with the Scythians, he was able to produce, from the
records; of,.: Greek and Roman ■' antiquity, a narrative which
represented them as playing a great part on the stage of
history at a time when they were really living in obscurity on
the Lower Vistula, utterly beyond the .horizon of Mediterranean
civilisation.

The principal works of his later years were intended for the
instruction of his monks— the Institutions and a treatise on
OrlhogmfJiy, The Institutions consisted of two mdex)endent
parts, of which the first, De institutione (Uvinanim litterarum,
was intended as an introduction to the study of the manuscripts
of the Bible, and contains an interesting disquisition on the
question of correcting the text. The second part is a handbook
on the Seven Liberal Arts. The two together offered a general
survey of sacred and secular learning.^ The manual on spelling
was composed, for the guidance of copyists, in the ninety-third
year of his age (c. a.d. 580).^ Thus he had lived to see great
changes. He had witnessed the complete subjugation of Italy
by Justinian, and when, at the age of eighty, he saw many of its
provinces pass under the yoke of the Lombard barbarians, it
may well have occurred to him that if the Ostrogothio rule had

^ On this work (in 12 books),
which belongs to the period of leisure
between 527 and 533, see his Praefatio
to the Variaet and Var, ix. 25
(origineni GotMcam Jiistorlam fecit esse
Momanam), I^or the later history
of the Goths he drew on their own
traditions, and he used the work of
Ablabius, who wrote a Itoman history
in Greek c. a.d. 400 (he is possibly
referred to in Var. x. 22). The work
of Cassiodorus was liberally used by
Jordanes, so that we can form an idea
of its scope and contents.

" Cassiodorus went to much ex-
pense in procuring MSS. [De im. i.
8). He mentions a large codex con-
taining Jerome’s version of the
Scriptures, and “ it has been con-
jectured that part of it survives

in the first and oldest quaternion of
the codex Araiatlnus of the Vulgate,
now in the Laurent ian Library in
Florence ” (Sand}^ op. cit. i. 251).

^ These books were written before
A.D. 555. Of his other works need
only be mentioned his Commentary
on the Psalms and his Ecclesiastical
History [Hist. Tripartita).

^ For this work he had the advan-
tage of using, besides older treatises,
that of his elder contomiiorary
Priscian (an African provincial), whose
Panegyric on Anastasius has been
referred to above, voL i. p. 467.
Priscian’s Grammar was a standard
text-book in the Middle Ages. It was
transcribed at Constantinople by a
pupil in 526”527. Sandvs, op. cit.
258-259.

224 . HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.,,

bee 33 * allowed to cmtinuedMs- calamity woiild have been spared
to Ms fellow-coimtrymeii.

While Boethius was immersed in the study of philosophy in
Ins library, with its walls decorated with ivory , and glass, and
while Cassiodoriis was : ■ engaged in, ■ his political and , rhetorical
labours in the Palace at Eavenna, another young man, of about
the same age as they, -who was destined to exert a greater influence
over western Europe than any of his Italian contemporaries,
was spending his days in austere religious practices in the wild
valleys of the upper Anio. St. Benedict, who belonged to the
same Anician gens as BoetMus, was born at Nursia, in an
Apennine vaUey, about twenty miles east of Spoleto.^ Sent to
Eome to study, he was so deeply disgusted by the corruption
of his school companions and by the vice of the great city, that
at the age of fourteen he set out with a faithful nurse for the
“ desert,'’ and at length took up his abode in a cave at Subla-
queum (Subiaco), near the sources of the Anio, where he lived
as a hermit. The temptations which he resisted, the perils
which he escaped, and the legends wMch rapidly gathered round
him, may be read in the biography written by his admirer, Pope
Gregory the Great.^ After his fame had gone abroad, his solitude
was interrupted, for men who desired to embrace the monastic
life flocked to him from all parts. He founded twelve monasteries
in the neighbourhood of Subiaco. In a.d. 528 he left the peaceful
region and went into Campania, where, at Monte Cassino, half-
way between Rome and Naples, he foimd a congenial task
awaiting him. Here, notwithstanding all the efforts of Christian
Emperors and priests to extirpate the old religions, there still
stood an altar and statue of Apollo in a sacred grove, and the
surrounding inhabitants practised the rites of pagan supersti-
tion. Benedict induced them to burn the grove and demolish
the altar and image, and on the height above he founded the
great monastery where he lived till his death. The Rule which
he drew up for his monks avoids the austerities of Egyptian
monasticism, and he expressly says that he wished to ordain
nothing hard or burdensome.^ WitHn three hundred years this
code of laws had superseded all others in western Europe, where
it held much the same position as St. Basil’s in the East.^

^ A.D. 480. ^ ® See Prologue,

^ Or in Hodgkin, Italy amd her ^ Benedict knew Basil’s Rule and
Invaders, iv. chap. xvi. refers to it (chap. Ixxiii.).

XVIII

SAINT BENEDICT

225

Benedict himself did not anticipate that the order which he
founded would ultimately become the learned order in the Church.
He ordained that '' because idleness is an enemy of the soul/’
the brethren should occupy themselves at specified times in
manual labour, and at other fixed hours in holy reading/’ ^ but
there is no indication that he included in manual labour the
transcription of MSS,^ Probably this was not introduced at
Monte Cassino till after his death, under the influence of
Cassiodorus.

APPENDIX

EOUTES FROM ITALY TO THE EAST

It may be convenient to the reader to have before him a table
showing some of the distances on the routes between Italy and
the East.

1. Rome to Brundusium (Via Appia) 530 kilometres.

Constantinople to Dyrrhachium
or Aulon (Via Egnatia) . . 1120 „

Rome to Constantinople . . 1650 kilometres 4- sea passage of

at least 24 hours (total time of
the journey ==23 to 26 days),
but messengers in haste could
do it in between 2 and 3 weeks.

2. Rome to Ravenna (Via Flaminia) 370 Idlometres.

Ravenna to iVquileia (coast road) 245 „

Aquileia to Constantinople (via

Poetovio) . . . . 1655 „

3. Aquileia to Salona . . . 420 „

Salona to DjuThachium . , 450 „

(These numbers are approximate. Note that a Roman mile = nearly
1|- kilometres.)

The usual rate of travelling, on horseback, varied from 60 to
75 kilometres daily. The regular rate of marching for an army
was from 15 to 17 kilometres, but might be considerably more if
the army was small or when there was a special need for haste.

The average rate of sailing was from 100 to 150 sea miles in
24 hours.

^ Eeff. Ben. chap, xlviii. (Gasquet’s keep as his ovti, without the abbot’s
translation). leave, books or tablets or pens

2 The rule that no brother is to (chap, xxxiii.) proves nothing.

VOL. II Q

CHAPTEE XIX

THE KECONQUEST OE ITALY ( 11.)

§ 1. The Reigns of Ildibad and Eraric (a.b. 540”541)

The policy of Belisariiis liad frustrated the coneliision of a
peace which would have left the Goths in peaceful possession
of Italy north of the Po. Such a peace could hardly have been
final, but it would have secured for the Empire a respite of some
years from warfare in the west at a time when all its resources
were needed against the great enemy in the east. If Belisarius
had not been recalled, he would probably have completed the
conquest of the peninsula within a few months. This, which
would have been the best solution, was defeated by the jealousy
of Justinian; and the peace proposed by the Emperor, which
was the next best course, was defeated by the disobedience of
his general. Between them they bear the responsibility of
inflicting upon Italy twelve more years of war.

The greater blame must be attached to Justinian. He had
indeed every reason to be displeased with the behaviour of
Belisarius, but the plainest common sense dictated that, if he
coidd no longer trust Belisarius, he should replace him by another
commander-in-chief. Of the generals who remained in Italy
the most distinguished was John, the nephew of Vitalian. But
instead of appointing him or another to the supreme command,
the Emperor allowed the generals to exercise co-equal and
independent authority each over Ms own troops. In consequence
of tMs unwise policy there was no efiective co-operation ; each
commander thought only of his own interests. They plundered
the Italians, and allowed the soldiers to follow their example, so
that discipline was undermined. In a few months so many
blunders were committed that the work accomplished by Beli-

226

REIGN OF ILDIBAD

227

sarius in five arduous years was almost undone, tlie Goths had
to be conquered over again, and it . took twelve years to do itd

The situation was aggravated .by the prompt introduction of
the Imperial , financial machi.nery , in,, the. conquered provinces.
The, logothete.^. Alexander,, an, -expert in' all the,, cruel methods of
enriching the treasury and - the ' tax-collector at the expense of
the provincials, arrived, and soon succeeded in making both
the Italians and the soldiers thoroughly discontented. Having
established Ms quarters at Eavenna, he. required the surviving
Italian officials of the Gothic kings to account for all money
that had passed through their hands during their years of
service, and compelled them to make good deficits out of their
own pockets. It cannot be doubted that many of these officials
had made illegitimate profits and xve need not waste much pity
on them; but Alexander extended his retrospective policy to
all private persons who had any dealings with the fisc of Ravenna.
In an inquiry into transactions of twenty, thirty, or forty years
ago, conducted by a man like Alexander, it is certain that grave
injustices were done.

He was acting on the constitutional principle that Italy was,
throughout the Gothic regime, subject to the Imperial authority,
and that the kings and their servants were responsible to the
Emperor for all their acts. But his proceedings w^ere calculated
to alienate the sympathies of the Italians and render the govern-
ment of Justinian unpopular. At the same time, by curtailing
the pay of the soldiers on various pretexts, he caused a deep
sense of injustice in the army.

After the departure of Belisarius, Vitalius was stationed in
Venetia, Constantian commanded the troops in Ravenna, Justin
held Florence, Conon Naples, Cyprian Perusia, and Bessas
perhaps had his quarters in Spoletium.® North of the Po, the
only important places still held by the Goths were Ticinum,

^ For the second period of the but this is far from decisive. Chance
Italian war, our source is still Pro- may have supplied him with fuller
copius. But the historian is no information for the events connected
longer writing from personal laiow- with the siege of Pvome. And as a
ledge, for he probably never returned matter of fact, the events of the last six
to Italy. Haury indeed is confident months of 552 run to as great a length
that he -was in Italy during the as those of the whole year 546-547.
twelfth year of the war, 546-547, ^ For the logothetes see below, p.

because he wrote about this year as 358.

much as he wrote about the first ® See^^.fr. iii. 1§34; 3§2; 5§1;
years of the war {Procopiana, i. p. 9), 6 § 2 ; b § 8 and 5 § 4 ; 6 § 8,

228

HISTORY OF TEE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

whicli king Ildi.bad made Ms residence, and Veronad The army
of Ildibad amoimted at first to little more than a thousand men,
but he gradually extended Ms authority over Liguria and Venetia.
The Eoman generals did nothing to prevent tliis revival of the
enemy’s strength, and it was not till he approached Treviso,
wliich appears to have been the headquarters of Vitalius, that
Ildibad met any opposition. Vitalius, whose forces included
a considerable body of Heruls, gave Mm battle and was de-
cisively defeated, Vitalius barely escaping, while the Herul
leader was slain.

Ildibad did not live long enough to profit by the prestige
which his victory procured him. His death was indii*ectly due
to a quarrel with Uraias, to whose influence he had owed his
crown. The wife of Uraias was beautiful and wealthy, and one
day when she went to the public baths, in rich apparel and
attended by a long train of servants, she met the queen, who
was clad in a plain dress (for the royal purse was ill-furnished),
and treated her with disrespect. The queen implored Ildibad
to avenge her outraged dignity, and soon afterwards Uraias was
treacherously put to death. TMs act caused bitter indignation
among the Goths, yet none of them was willing to avenge the
nephew of Witigis. But a Gepid belonging to the royal guard,
who had a personal grudge against the king, murdered Ildibad
at a banquet in the palace (a.i>. 641, about May). He would not
have ventured on the crime if he had not known that it would
please the Goths, as a just retribution for the murder of Uraias.

The event came as a surprise, and the Goths could not im-
mediately agree on the choice of a successor to the throne. The
matter was decided in an unexpected way. The Eugian subjects
of Odovacar, who had submitted after his fall to the rule of
Theoderic, had never merged themselves in the Gothic nation-
ality, but had maintained their identity as a separate people in
northern Italy. They seized the occasion to proclaim as king
Eraric, the most distinguished of their number. The Goths were
vexed at the presumption of the Eugians, but nevertheless they
recognised Eraric, and endured Ms rule for five months, presum-
ably because there was none among themselves on whose fitness
for the throne they could agree.

^ Procopius, B.G. 1 § 27, says only Ticinum ; but it is clear from the narrative
that Verona had remained in their hands throughout.

XIX

229

REIGN OF ERARIC

Eraric suiiimoned a council and persuaded tlie Goths to
consent to his sending an embassy to Constantinople for the
purpose of proposing peace on the same terms which the Emperor
had offered to Witigis. ' But the Eugian was a traitor. He
selected as ambassadors creatures of his own, and gave them
secret instructions to inform Justinian privately that he was
prepared, in return for the Patriciate and a large sum of mone}",
to abdicate and hand over northern Italy to the Empire.

In the meantime he made no pretence of carrying on , the
war, and the Goths regretted ' the energy of Ildibad. Looking
about for a worthy successor, they bethought them of Totila,^
Ildibad’s nephew, a young man who had not yet reached his
thirtieth year and had acquired some repute for energy and
intelligence. He had been apjpointed commander of the garrison
of Treviso, and after his imcleh assassination, despairing of
the Gothic cause, he had secretly opened negotiations with
Ravenna, offering to hand over the town. A day for the sur-
render w^as fixed when he received a message from the Gothic
nobles who were conspiring against Eraric, inviting him to become
their king. Concealing liis treacherous intrigue with the enemy,
he accepted the proposal on condition that Eraric should be
slain before a certain day, and he named the day on which he
had undertaken to admit the Romans into the town. Eraric
w^'as duly put to death by the conspirators and Totila ascended
the throne (a.I). 541, September or October).

§ 2. The First Successes of Totila (a.d. 641-543)

Eraric's ambassadors seem to have been still at Constantinople
when the news of his murder and Totila’s accession arrived.
Justinian w^as incensed at the supine conduct of his generals
who had failed to take advantage of Eraric’s incapacity, and
his indignant messages at last forced them to plan a common

^ So he is always called by this recognition of the li^mperor was
Procopius, but on the coins of his soon abandoned, and the biist of
reign, both silver and copper, his Anastasius was substituted. Finally,
name is invariably Baduila, which in his last years, he issued silver and
is also found in the Hist. Miscella^ B. bronze coins with his own bust
xvi. p. 107. Jordanes {Rom. 380) (imitated from that of Anastasius),
uses both names. The reason of the a.d. 549-552. The regal mint was at
double designation has not been Ticinum, but coins were afterwards
cleared up. Totila issued at first struck at Rome. See Wroth, Coins
coins with the head of Justinian, but of the Vandals^ etc., xxxviL-xxxviii.

230 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

enterprise. Tliey met at Eavenna and decided that Gonstantian
and Alexander should advance upon Verona with 12,000 men.
One of the Gothic sentinels was bribed to open a gate, and when
the army approached the city, a picked band led by an Armenian,
Artabazes, was sent forward at night to enter and take possession.
Artabazes did his part, and Verona would have been captured
if the commanders had not wasted the night in quarrelling over
the division of the expected booty. When they arrived at
last, the Gothic garrison had regained possession of the place
and barred the gates, and the Httle band of Artabazes, having
no other means of escape, leaped from the walls and all but a
few were killed by the fall.^

The army retreated across the Po and encamped on the
stream of Lamone,^ near Faventia. Totila marched against
them at the head of 5000 men, and in the battle which ensued
gained a brilliant victory, all the Imperial standards falling
into his hands,^ Verona and Faventia exhibited the evil of a
divided command.

Totila was encouraged by this success to take the offensive
in Tuscany. He sent a force against Florence, where Justin,
who had helped to capture it three years before, was in command.
John, Bessas, and Cyprian hastened to its relief, and on the
appearance of their superior forces, the Goths raised the siege
and moved up the valley of the Sieve. This locality was then
known as Mncellium, and the name survives as Mugello. The
Eoman army pursued them, and John with a chosen band
pushed on to engage the enemy while the rest followed more
slowly. The Goths, who had occupied a hill, rushed down upon
John’s troops. In the hot action which ensued, a false rumour
spread that John had fallen, and the Eomans retired to join
the main army, which had not yet been drawn up in order of
battle, and was easily infected with their panic. All the troops
fled disgracefully, and the Goths pursued their advantage. The
prisoners were well treated by Totila and induced to serve under
his bamaer. The defeated generals abandoned all thought of

^ The attempt on Verona and the The Lamone is the ancient Anemo.
battles of Faventia and Mugeilo are ® The most striking incident in the
probably to be placed in the spring battle was the single combat between
of 542. See Cont. Mar cell. §§ 2, 3, Valaris, a gigantic Goth, and Arta-
suh a, , . bazes, in which the Goth was slain

- Cp. Hodgkin, op. cit. iv. 444. and Artabazes mortally wounded.

XIX.

FIRST SUCCESSES OF TOTILA

231

further co-operation and hastily retreated, Bessas to Spoletium,
Cyprian to Perusia, and John to.Eome. , ■

The victory of Miigello,' however, did not lead to^ the defection
of Tuscany, a.nd, Jiistin, remained, safely .in Florence. Totila
j captured some places in Umbria—Caesena and Petra Pertusa/—

, but then instead of pursuing steadily the conquest of central

Italy, where the Imperialist forces, concentrated in strong cities,
were too formidable for his small army, he decided to transfer
his operations to the south of the peninsula. There the success
f of Ms arms and policy was swift and sweeping. Avoiding Rome,

he marched to Beiieventum, wMch was an easy prey, and razed
its ivalls to the ground. The provinces of Lucania and Bruttii,
x4pulia, and Calabria acknowledged his authority and paid him
the taxes which would othervuse have gone to satisfy the demands
of the Imperial soldiers, to whom long arrears were owed. Totila
i had meanwhile laid siege to Naples, which Conon was holding

[ with a garrison of 1000 Isaurians. He collected considerable

I treasure from Cumae and other fortresses in the neighbourhood,

and created a good impression by his courteous treatment of
the wdves and daughters of Roman senators whom he found in
these places and allowed to go free. This is one instance, and
we shall meet others, of the policy which lie often followed of
winning the sympathy of the Italians by a more generous treat-
ment than they were prepared to expect from an enemy.

The news of the revival of the Gothic power and the danger
of Naples alarmed the Emperor, and he took some measures to
meet the crisis, but they were far from sufficient. Instead of
; confiding the supreme command to an experienced general, he

appointed a civilian, Maximin, to be Praetorian Prefect of Italy,
and gave him powers of general supervision over the conduct
of the war, sending with Mm Thracian and Armenian troops
and a few Huns. Maximinj who seems to have been one of the
worst choices the Emperor could have made, sailed to Epirus
; and remained there unable to decide what to do. Soon after-

wards Demetrius, an officer who had formerly served under
^ Belisarius, was sent to the west. He appears to have been

; invested with the office of Master of Soldiers, but we find Mm

; acting under the orders of Maximin.^ He sailed straight to

* ^ The Continuer of Marceliinus, sub d42, adds XJrbiniim and Mons l^eietris.

, ^ JB.G. iii. 6. 13 Ari/jLn^Tpiop err parity 6v ; cp. 7. 3.

232 HISTORY OF l^HE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE cpiap.

Sicily, where lie learned how severely Naples was suffering from
lack" of food, and he made prompt preparations to bring help.
He had only a handful of men, but collecting as many vessels
as he could find in the Sicilian harbours, he loaded them with
provisions and set sail in the hope that the enemy would believe
that they were conveying a large army. It is thought that if
this bold design had been executed the Goths would have with-
drawn from Naples and the city might have been saved. But
before Demetrius reached his destination, he revised his plan
and made for Porto, hoping to obtain some reinforcements
from Eome. But the Eoman garrison was demoralised and
refused to join in an expedition which seemed full of danger.
Demetrius then sailed for the bay of Naples. Totila mean-
while had been fully informed of the facts and had a
number of ‘war vessels ready to attack the transports when
they were close to the shore. Most of the crews were slain
or made prisoners ; Demetrius was one of the few who escaped
in boats.

Another attempt to relieve Naples was another failure.
Maximin and the forces which accompanied him had at last left
Epirus and reached Syracuse. Moved by the importmiate
messages of Conon for help, he consented, although it was now
midwinter, to send these troops to Naples, and Demetrius, who
had made his way back to Sicily, accompanied this second
expedition. It reached the bay of Naples safely, but there a
violent gale arose which drove the ships ashore close to the
Gothic camp. The crews were easily slain or captured, and
Demetrius fell into the hands of Totila.^

The Neapolitans were starving, and Totila proposed generous
terms. '' Surrender,’’ he said, and I wiU allow Conon and all
his soldiers to depart unhurt and take all their property with
them.” Still hoping that help might come, Conon promised to
surrender on these terms in thirty days. Confident that there
was no chance of relief forthcoming, Totila replied, I will give
you three months, and in the meantime will make no attempt to

^ Another Demetrius (originally a tion. He, too, fell into the hands of
Cephallenian sailor who had dis- the Goths. He had given dire offence
tinguished himself in the campaigns to Totila, whom, on his first appearance
of Belisarius and had been appointed before the walls of Naples, he had over
an overseer of some kind in Naples) whelmed with insolent abuse. The
had succeeded in leaving the city to king now punished him by cutting out
communicate with the relief expedi- his tongue and cutting ofi his hands.

XIX TOTILA^S CAPTURE OF NAPLES 2S3

take tlie city.” But before the term had run out, the exhausted
garrison and citizens abandoned hope and opened the gates
(a.d. 543, March or April),

On this occasion Totila exhibited a considerate humanity
which was not to be expected, as the historian Procopius reinarlcs,
from an eiieiny or a barbarian. He knew that if an abundance of
food were at once supplied, the famished inliabitants would
gorge themselves to death. He posted sentinels .at the ' gates
and in the harbour and allowed no one to leave the city. Then
he dealt out small rations, gradually increasing the quantity
every day until the people had recovered their strength. The
terms of the capitulation were more than faithfully observed.
Conon and his followers were embarked in sliips with which
the Goths provided them, and when, deciding to sail for Kome,
they w^ere hindered by contrary winds, Totila furnished horses,
provisions, and guides so that they could make the journey by
land.

The fortifications of Naples w^ere partly razed to the ground.^

§ 3. Return of Belisarius to Italy (Summer, a.b. 544)

In the meantime the generals of Justinian w^ere making no
efforts to stem the tide of Gothic success. They plundered the
Italians and spent their time in riotous living. Then Constantian
wu’ote to the Emperor, stating bluntly that it w^as impossible
to cope with the enemy. ^ These messages did not arouse
Justinian to action till they were reinforced by news of Totila’s
next movements.

Totila felt that he w^as how in a position to attack Home
itself. He began his operations by writing a letter to the Senate,
in which he contrasted Gothic with /' Greek ” rule and attempted
to show^ that it w^as the interest of the Italians that the old
regime of the days of Theoderic and Amalasuntha should be
restored. The letter w^'as conveyed to Rome by Italian prisoners,

^ If there is any foundation for the Pagi and ]\Iartroye, EOccide^it, p.
tradition, preserved in C^egory L, 436) ; the traditional date, accex^ted
Plat ii. cc. 14, 15, that Totila visited by the Order, is March 21, 543.

St. Benedict at Monte Cassmo, the ® B.G. iii. 9. 5 ; the other leaders
incident must have occurred either seem either to have enclosed separate
before or soon after the siege of letters to the same effect or to have
Naples. The year of Benedict’s attached their signatures to Con-
death is uncertain, perhaps 544 (so stantian’s communication-

234 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

but Jolin, who was in command of the garrison, forbade tbe senators
to rej)ly. Totila then contrived that a number of placards,
annoimcing that he bound himself by the most solemn oaths
not to harm the Eoinans, should be smuggled into Eome and
posted up. John suspected that the. Arian clergy were his agents
and expelled them all from the city.

Totila then sent part of his army to besiege Otranto, and'with
the rest advanced upon Eome (spring, a.d. 544). Thereupon
Justinian at last decided to recall Belisarius from Persia and
send him to Italy to assume the supreme command, as the only
means of retrieving the situation.^

The first thing Belisarius had to do was to collect some troops
in Europe, for it was impossible to weaken the eastern front by
bringing any regiments with Mm from Asia. At his own cost
and with the assistance of Vitalius, who had recently been
appointed Master of Soldiers in lUyricum, he recruited 4000
men in the Thracian and Illyrian provinces, and proceeded to
Salona. His first care was to send a relief expedition to Otranto
(summer, a.d. 544), and tHs enterprise was completely successful.^
The siege was raised and the town supplied with provisions
for a year. This was a good beginning, but Belisarius then,
persuaded by Vitalius,^ committed a serious mistake. He
made Eavenna his base, and he could hardly have chosen a
less suitable place for offensive operations of which the most
important and pressing objects were to succour Eome and
recover Naples and southern Italy.

Some of the fortresses in the province of Aemilia, including
Borionia, were occupied, hut the Illyrian troops who won these
successes, having suddenly received the news that their homes
were being devastated by an army of Huns, stole away and
marched back to their own country. Bononia could no longer
be held, and soon afterwards Anximum surrendered to the
Goths, wEo inflicted a severe defeat on a small force which
Belisarius had sent to its relief. At the end of the first year
of his command the general had little to show but the saving of

^ It was said that Belisarius at the end of the first year {B.O, iii.
persuaded Justinian to send him to 12. 10; see below, p. 235). He held
Italy, by a promise that the war the office of Conies stabuli,
would be self-supporting and that ^ It was carried out by Valentine,
he ivould never ask for money who had won distinction in the siege
(Procopius, ILA. 4. 39 ws 0acrt), of Rome by Witigis.
but we find him writing for money ^ B.Q. iii. 13. 14.

XIX

BELISAIUUS RETURNS TO ITALY

2S5

Otranto.^ Meamvliile Totila was blockading Eonie, now under
tlie command of Bessas, and lie had taken Tibiir. The fall of
this place was due to a dispute between the inhabitants and the
Lsaiiriaii garrison. The Isaurians betrayed it to the enemy,
and all the inhabitants, including the bishop, were put to death in
a way which the historian declines to describe on the ground that
he is Tiiiwilling to '' leave to future times memorials of atrocity.’’

Belisarius saw that the Imperial cause in Italy was lost
unless he received powerful reinforcements and money to pay
them. Ill the early summer of a.d. 545 he wrote to the
Emperor setting forth the difficulties of the war. '' I arrived in
Italy without men, horses, arms, or money. The provinces
cannot supply me with revenue, for they are occupied by the
enemy ; and the numbers of our troops have been reduced by
large desertions to the Goths. No general could succeed in
these circumstances. Send me my own armed retainers and a
large host of Huns and other barbarians, and send me money.”
With a letter to this effect, he sent John to Constantinople under
a solemn pledge that he would return immediately. But John,
instead of pressing the urgent needs of Ms commander, delayed
in the capital and advanced his own fortunes by marrying the
daughter of Germanus, the Emperor’s cousin.

It was probably late in the year that John came at last with
a new army. Belisarius had gone over to Dyrrhachium to await
his arrival and had sent another importunate message to the
Emperor. Isaac the Armenian accompanied John, and the
Emperor had sent Narses to the land of the Heruls to secure a
host of those barbarians ^ to take part in the operations of the
following spring.

Totila, in the meantime, had been taking towm after town
in Piceniim and Tuscany. Fermo and Ascoli, Spoleto and
Assisi, were compelled to capitulate.^ He offered large bribes
to Cyprian to surrender Perusia, and, finding him incorruptible,
suborned one of his retainers to assassinate him. But the foul
murder did not effect its purpose, as the garrison remained loyal
to the Emperor. The Goths had now secured effective command
of the Flaminian Way, and it was impossible for Imperial troops

^ He rebuilt indeed tiie walls and ^ Procopius does nob record their
defences of Pisaurum (Pesaro), which numbers ; evidently he had no
had been, like those of Fano, dis- accurate information {B,G. iii. 13. 21).
mantled by Witigis. ® Cp. Oontin. MaixelL, sub 545.

2m HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

to inarch from Ravenna overland to the relief of Rome. The
only place which tlie Imperialists still held in the Aemilian
province was Placentia, an important fortress, because here the
Aemilian Way crossed the Po. Totila presently sent an army
against it, and captured it at the end of a year, when the
inliabitants were so pressed by hunger that they were driven to
camibalism (May A.D. 545 to May 546).^

§ 4. Second Siege of Rome (a.d. 546)

It was towards the end of a,d. 545 or early in a.d. 546 that
Totila began to besiege Rome in person and with vigour. He had
already out off sea-borne supplies by a considerable fleet of light
ships stationed at Naples and in the Liparaean Islands. The
whole province of Campania seems to have been subject to the
Goths, who, we are told, both here and in the rest of Italy, left
the land to the Italians to tiU peaceably, only requiring them to
pay the taxes which would otherwise have been exacted by the
Emperor.^ Of the two ports at the mouth of the Tiber, Ostia
was in the possession of the Goths, while Portus was held for
the Emperor by Innocent. It will be remembered that during
the former siege by Witigis, the position was just the reverse ; the
Romans were in Ostia, the Goths in Portus.

Belisarius despatched Valentine and Phocas, one of his guards,
with 500 men by sea to reinforce the garrison of Portus. The
troops in Rome numbered 3000, and if Bessas, their commander,
had co-operated actively with the leaders at Portus, it might
have been possible to secure the passage of foodships up the
Tiber. But he refused to allow any of Ms men to hazard a
sortie. Valentine and Phocas, with their small forces, attempted
a surprise attack on the GotMc camp, . but they fell into an
ambuscade -which Totila, informed of their plan by a deserter,
had set for them. Most of the Romans, including the two leaders,
perished.

Not long afterwards Pope Vigilius, who was staying at
Syracuse on his way to Constantinople, sent a flotilla of corn-
ships to feed the starving city. The Goths saw them approacMng

^ B.G. iii. 13. 8 and 16. 2. ,9. 3, where the provincials are said

to have been robbed of their lands
^ Ib. 13. 1 ; this statement, how- by the C4oths and of their movable
ever, is in direct contradiction with property by the Imperial soldiers.

XIX

TOTILA^S FIRST SIEGE OF ROME

and posted an ambiislid The garrison of PortiiSj who could see
the moveiiients of the enemy from the walls, waved garments
and signalled to the ships to keep away from the harbour and
land elsewhere, but the crews mistook the signals for demonstra-
tions of welcome, and sailing into the trap which had been laid
for them were easily captured and slain. A bishop who accom-
panied the convoy was seized and interrogated by the king.
His replies were tmsatisfactory, and Totila, convinced that he
wms lying, ijunished him by cutting of! his hands.

The pressure of hunger in Eome was now so severe that it
was decided to ask Totila for a truce of a few days, on the under-
standing that, if no help arrived before it expired, the city would
be surrendered. One of the Eoman clergy, the deacon Pelagius,
who Avas afterwards to fill the chair of St. Peter, undertook the
mission. As representative of the Eoman see at Constantinople
he had ingratiated himself in the favour of Justinian, he enjoyed
a high reputation in Italy, and had won popularity by employing
his considerable wealth to relieve the sufferings of the siege.
Totila received him., with the courtesy due to a man of his
character and influence, but made a speech, if we can trust the
historian, which had the effect of preventing any attempt at
negotiation.

The highest compliment I can pay to an ambassador,’’ such
was the drift of the king’s statement, is candour. And so I
will tell you plainly at the outset that there are tliree points on
which I am resolved and will entertain no parley, but otherwise
I will gladly meet any proposals you may make. The three
exceptions are : (1)1 will show no mercy to the Sicilians ; (2) the
walls of Eome shall not be left standing ; (3) I will not give up
the slaves who deserted to us from their Eoman masters on our
promise that we should never surrender them.” Pelagius did
not conceal his chagrin at these reservations and departed with-
out making any proposals.

^ It is not clear what the
Xi/iirjp was, behmd the walls of which
(tiSj' reix^v 4 vtos) the Goths con-
cealed themselves {ib. 15. 10), and
into which the foodships sailed,
according to Procopius. Probably
he misconceived the topography.
The ships were making for the harbour
of Porto, and were captured near the
mouth of the channel which divides

Porto from the Isola Sacra. This
appears to be the interpretation of
Plodgkin, op. cit. iv, 526. It is
difficult to see how the Goths could
have hidden themselves in the
harbour of Porto (which was presum-
ably under the control of the garrison)
as Slartroye assumes [op. cit. 446). As
to the presence of Vigilius in Sicily
see below, p, 385.

238 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

It is difficult to suppose that tHs interview has been quite
correctly recorded. Why should Totila haA^e mtroduced the
subject of Sicily, which had no apparent bearing on the surrender
of Eome, unless it had been first introduced by Pelagius ? If
the report of Procopius is true so far as it goes, we must suppose
that it is incomplete and that he has omitted to say that the
ambassador opened the conversation by mentioning certain
conditions for eventual surrender among which Avere the three
points as to which Totila said he could make no concessions.

It is intelligible that Pelagius should have availed himself of
this opportunity, whether Avith or without the authorisation of
Bessas, to attempt to safeguard the Sicilians. For it is probable
that Totila had made no concealment of his intention to punish
them for what he regarded as their black ingratitude to the
Goths. They had enjoyed a privileged position under Theoderic
and his successors ; for no Goths had been settled in the island.
But when Belisarius landed they had welcomed him with
unanimous enthusiasm, and smoothed the way for his conquest
of Italy. Their conduct rankled in the minds of the Goths,
and they might well shiver at the thought of the chastisement
awaiting them when Totila should ha Am his hands free after the
capture of Koine.

The Aundictiveness displayed by Totila towards Sicily seems
to have been the reason wffiich induced Pelagius to break off the
negotiation Avithout pressing for the truce which he had been
sent to arrange. His failure drove the citizens to despair.
Some of them appeared before Bessas and his officers and implored
them either to give them food to keep them alwe or to alloAV
them to leave the city or to kill them. They received a cold,
unsympathetic reply. We cannot agree to any of your sugges-
tions. The first is impossible, the second Avould be dangerous,
the third criminal. But Belisarius will soon be here to relieve
the city.'’’ Throughout the siege Bessas and his subordinate
commanders had been profiting by the dire necessity of the
inhabitants to fill their own purses. At first they had plenty
of corn in their magazines, and they sold it to the richer people
at an exorbitant price.^ Those who could not afford to buy had

^ About 58 shillings a bushel in the vicinity of the walls and was sold
(7 solidi for a mcdimnus, t.e. 6 modii for over £30. Hodgkin (o^. cii. iv. 532)
or about 1| bushels). Occasionally a misunderstands l^rocopius (iii. 17. 12)
stray ox was captured by the soldiers and supposes this happened only once!

XIX TOTlL.rS FIRST SIEGE OF ROME 239

to content tliemselves with bran at a quarter of the price. The
mass of the populace fed on cooked nettles, and when the supplies
of com and bran ran short, , nettles 'became the food' of alL On
this fare, ocoasionally supplemented by the flesh of a. dog or a
rodent, they,' died,, or,,, wasting away,, moved about: like, ghosts.
At last the "'heart of Bessas was moved by the./offer. of ' a 'sum of
money to allow the civilians to leave the city. Nearly all took
advantage of the permission. Many fell into the hands of the
Goths and were cut to pieces, and of the rest it is said that the
greater number dropped by the wayside exhausted and died
where they lay. The fortunes of the Seimte and Roman
people had come to this.’’* ^

The next event was the landing of Belisarius at Portus. It
was his intention on the arrival of John with reinforcements at
Dyrrhachium to proceed immediately with all the forces he
had to the relief of Rome. But John urged that it would be
better to drive the Goths first out of Calabria and southern
Italy, which they did not hold strongly, and then march on Rome.
The result of these deliberations was a compromise.^ The
geiK^als divided their forces. The voyage of Belisarius, who,
accompanied by Antonina, first set sail with part of the army,
was interrupted by adverse winds which compelled him to put
in at Otranto. This port was still being besieged by the Goths,
who, on the approach of his fleet, fled to Briuidusium, where
John presently landed and put them to rout. This victory
meant the definite recovery of Calabria. John then marched
northwards into Apuha and took Canusium, then southwards
into Bruttii, where he defeated the Gothic general who was in
command at Rhegium. He appears to have been determined,
for other than military reasons,^ not to join Belisarius, who was
impatiently expecting him on the Tiber ; for we cannot suppose
that he -was deterred from fulfilling his promise by a body of
300 cavalry which Totila had sent to Capua.

Having established himself at Portus, Belisarius decided that
his forces were too weak to attack the Gothic camp with any

^ B,G, iii. 17. 25. instructions of Theodora, might

“ Hodgkin’s interpretation of what attempt to conij^ass his death. His
happened is probably right (iv. 535). marriage with the daughter of

2 In II. A. 5. 13. 14, Procopius Germanus had been opposed by
explains John’s conduct as due to the Theodora, and Procopius asserts that
fear that Antonina, acting under the she threatened to destroy him.

240

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

clian.ce of success^ and that the only thing he could attempt was
to provision the city. To prevent foodships from ascending the
river, Totila had thrown across the stream, some miles above
Portiis, a wooden boom,^ mth a tower at either end in which
guards were stationed, and below it he had stretched an iron
chain from banlc to bank. To overcome this obstacle, Belisarius
bound together two broad boats on which he constructed a
wooden tower higher than the towers of the boom, and on the
top he placed a boat filled with pitch, sulphur, resin, and other
combustibles. He loaded with provisions and manned with the
best of his soldiers two hundred dromons or light 'warships, on
the decks of which he had erected high wooden parapets pierced
with holes through which his archers could shoot. When all was
ready he stationed some troops near the mouth of the Tiber, in
case the enemy should attack Portus. He left Isaac the Armenian
in charge of Portus, entrusting Antonina to his care, with strict
ill] unctions not to leave the place on any plea, not even if he
should hear that Belisarius had been slain. Other troops were
ordered to advance along the right bank of the Tiber to co-operate
with the ships, and a message had been sent to Bessas bidding
him distract the enemy by a sortie. It was the one thing which
Bessas was determined not to do.

Belisarius embarked in one of the dromons, and the double
barge was slowly urged or hauled upstream,^ Unhindered by
the enemy, who did not appear, they reached the iron chain.
Here they had to deal with some Goths who had been set on
either bank to guard it. Having killed or put them to flight,
they hauled up the chain and advanced against the boom, where
they Avere confronted by more serious resistance, for enemy
soldiers rushed from their encampments to help the guards in
the towers. The double barge was then guided close to the
tower on the right bank,^ the combustibles were set alight, and
the boat ivas dropped on the tower. The tower was immedi-
ately wrapt in flame, and the two hundred Goths inside were
consumed. Meanwhile the archers in the dromons rained arroiA’s
on the Gothic forces which had assembled on the bank till these,
terrified at once by the conflagration and by the deadly shower,

^ ye<ln>pa.

^ Procopius does not say how.
Hodgkin supposes that it was tugged

by some of the dromons.

® Evidently this side was chosen
by Belisarius because his troops on
shore could assist.

XIX

TOTILA^S FIRST SIEGE OF ROME

241

turned and fled. The men of Belisarius then set fire to the boom,
and the way to Rome was clear.

But in the very moment in which he was rejoicing that his
difficult enterprise, so skilfully planned and executed, was
cronmed with success, horsemen galloped up the road from
Portus witli the tidings that Isaac the Armenian was in the hands
of the enemy. Belisarius lost his presence of mind. He did
not wait to ask for details. He leaped to the conclusion that
Portus had been captured, that his wife had fallen into the
hands of the Goths, that he and his army had lost their base and
refuge ; and he decided that the only thing to be done was to
return at once udth all his forces and attempt to recover Portus
before the enemy had time to organise its defence.^ The
dromons sailed down the river, to find Portus miharmed and
Antonina safe.

What had happened was this. The news of the breaking of
the chain and the conflagration of the tower had come — ^perhaps
it was signalled — to the ears of Isaac. He could not resist
the temptation of doing something to win glory for himself, and,
in flat disobedience to the express orders of his general, he left
the fortress, crossed to the other bank of the channel, and, taking
a hundred of the cavalry which Belisarius had posted on the
Isola Sacra, attacked a Gothic encampment which was under the
command of Roderick.^ The enemy were taken by surprise
and retired ; Roderick himself was wounded. But as Isaac and
his men were plundering the camp, they were in turn surprised
by the Goths who returned to attack them.. Many were slain
and Isaac was taken alive. Roderick died of his wnund, and
Totila, who valued him highly, avenged him by putting Isaac
to death.

The misfortune might have been retrieved if Belisarius, on
discovering his mistake, had promptly retraced his course
upstream, before the enemy had time to replace the boom or
construct new obstacles. But he had not the heart to make
another attempt. The shock had been so great and the dis-
appointment so grievous that his physical strength collapsed.

^ ’E'7n$7]cr6iJ.€Pos ixep draKTOis 'in r oh assumes that it was at Ostia (which
TToXeiiioLs ovai^ B.G. iii, 19. 31. Procopius does not mention), but this

would have involved crossing the
^ Apparently in the Isola Sacra, river between Isola Sacra and Ostia,
probably opposite Ostia. Hodgkin Nothing is said of this.

VOL. 11 E

242 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Envious fortune seemed to have snatched the cup from his lips,
and he must have felt that, if Isaac’s unpardonable disobedience
had originated the misfortune, it would have had no serious
consequences but for his own precipitate action. He fell ill
and a dangerous fever supervened.

It was not long after this that Kome was captured. Bessas
as well as the soldiers grew negligent of the routine work on
which the safety of a besieged city depends. Sentinels slept
at their posts, and the patrols which used to go round the walls
to see that watch was kept were discontinued. Four Isaurians,
whose nightly post was close to the Asinarian Gate, took
advantage of this laxity to betray the city. Letting themselves
down from the battlements by a rope, they went in the darkness
to the camp of Totila and offered to open the gate. He agreed
to pay them well for their treachery and sent two of his followers
back uvith them to report whether the scheme was practicable.
But he did not altogether trust them, and it was not till they had
twice returned to urge him to the enterprise that he finally
decided to make use of their help. On the appointed night
four strong Goths were hauled up by the Isaurians, and cleaving
the wooden bolts of the gate with axes they admitted their king
and the army (December 17, A.D. 546).^

Bessas and the greater part of the garrison, with a few senators
who still had horses, fled through another gate (perhaps the
Flaniinian). Bessas in his haste left behind him all the treasure
which he had spent a year in wringing from the starving citizens.
Of the civilian population there were only about 500 left. These
took refuge in churches, and sixty of them were killed by the
Gothic soldiery when Totila let his troops loose to slay and
plunder. He w'ent himself to pray in St. Peter’s, where Pelagius,
holding the Bible in his hands, accosted him with the wmrds,
Spare thy people, my lord.” Totila, thinking of their kvSt
meeting, said, '' JSTow, 0 Pelagius, thou hast come to supplicate
me.” '' Yes,” w^as the reply, as God has made me thy servant.
But henceforth spare thy servants, my lord.” Totila then
issued an order to stay the slaughter, but he allowed the Goths
to plunder at their will, reserving the most valuable treasures
for himself. The fact that no acts of violence to women disgraced
the capture of Rome redounded to his glory.

^ Contin. Marcell,, mb 547. John Mai. xviii. p. 483 says p^rjvl <^€(^povapi(^.

XIX

TOTILA^S FIRST SIEGE OF ROME

243

Totila hoped that this success would end the war. He
despatched , Pelagius and another Bomaii ' to Oonstaiitiiiople
hearing a letter to' the Emperor, ho following effect :

'' You have already heard' what has happened to Rome, and
you will learn from these envoys whyd have sent them. We
are asking you to accept yourself and accord to us the blessings
of that peace which was enjoyed in the time of Anastasiiis and
Theoderic. If you consent, I will call you my father and we
Goths will be your allies against all your enemies.’’

It is clear from this letter that Totila’s idea was not to establish
a completely independent power in Italy, like those of the
Germanic kingdoms in Gaul and Spain, but to restore the con-
stitutional system which had been in force under Theoderic
and Athalaric. The capitulations of a.d. 497 w'ere to be renewed,
the Imperial authority was still to be nominally supreme. The
ambassadors were instructed to intimate that, if the offer of
peace were rejected, Totila would raze Rome to the ground and
invade Illyriciim. Justinian did not detain them long. He
sent them back with a curt answer that as full powers for con-
ducting the war and concluding peace had been committed to
Belisarius, Totila might apply to him. ^

In the meantime the slow but steady progress of the Imperial
cause in southern Italy, where, if John had not taken any risks
or achieved any striking success, Lucania had been detached
from Gothic rule, demanded Totila’s presence in the south. He
did not want to locl^ up a garrison in Rome or to leave it for his
enemies to reoccupy, and he decided to demolish it. He began
by pulling down various sections of the walls, ^ and was about
to burn the principal buildings and monuments when envoys
arrived with a letter from Belisarius, who was recovering from
his illness at Portus. The tenor of the letter is reported thus :

'' As those to whom a city owes the construction of beautiful
buildings are reputed -wise and civilised, so those who cause their
destruction are naturally regarded by posterity as persons devoid
of intelligence, true to their own nature. Of all cities under

^ It may be conjectured that been back in Italy in the first half
Procopius, directly or indirectly, of February,
gathered a good deal of his informa-
tion about the siege of Koine from - Procopius estimates the razed
this embassy. We are not told portions as about one -third of the
whether Totila did make overtures whole circuit — probably an excessive
to Belisarius. The envoys may have, estimate (Hodgkin, iv. 566).

244 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the sun Eonie is admitted universally to be the greatest and
most important. She attained this pre-eminence not suddenly
nor by the genius of one man, but in the course of a long history
throughout which emperors and nobles by their vast resources
and employing skilful artists from all parts of the world have
gradually made her what you see her to-day. Her monuments
belong to posterity, and an outrage committed upon them will
rightly be regarded as a great injustice to all future generations
as well as to the memory of those who created them. Therefore
consider well. Should you be victorious in this war, Eome
destroyed will be your own loss, preserved it will be your fairest
possession. Should it be your fortune to be defeated, the
conqueror mil owe you gratitude if you spare Eome, whereas
if you demolish it, there will be no reason for clemency, while
the act itself will have brought you no profit. And remember
that your reputation in the eyes of the world is at stake.’’

This is an interesting document, whether it reproduces closely
or not the drift of the actual letter of Belisarius. Totila read
that letter again and again ; it gave him a new point of view ;
and the remonstrance of civilisation finally defeated in his breast
the barbarous instincts of his race. He bade the work of vandal-
ism cease.

§ 5. Reocciqmtion of Rome, Siege of Rossano, and
Recall of Belisarius (a.d. 547-549) .

The greater part of the Gothic army was left, at a place called
Algedon, about eighteen miles west of Eome,^ to watch Belisarius
and prevent him from leaving Portus. With the rest Totila
marched southward and soon recovered Lucania, Apulia," and
Calabria, except Otranto and Taranto, in which John entrenched
himself.^ Then leaving a detachment of 400 men in the hill-town
of Acherontia,^ on the borders of Apulia and Lucania, he marched
northwards. Was his design to surprise Eavenna, as the historian

^ The name 'kXyrjo^v {? Alcedum) lay on the isthmus. Totila probably
is otherwise unlcnown. Martroye {op, departed for the south towards the
cit, 406) thinks it may be identified end of February. \?e have to allow
with Castel Malnonie, not far from time for the return of the envoys
Porto. Wount Algidus, which lies who were despatched in December to
east of Borne, is out of the question. Constantinople.

2 Tarenttim was im wailed, and he, » CkhaemdmnAclLeront(ae(llovQ.Q.Q)',
fortified only that part of it which now Acerenza.

XIX

ROME REOCCUPIED

245

intimates, or to re-establish. Ms command of the Flamiiiiaii Way,
which was threatened by a recent success of the Imperialists ?
They had recovered fSpoletium.

, ' , .But grave, news from Eome' compelled him toj^ostpone his
purpose/. He '..had left Eome .uninhabited, its' walls partly
.destroyed, and all the gates-, removed. Be'lisarius, whose health
was now returned, visited the desolate city and decided to occupy
...it, 'and 'put.' it in a state ' of defence.^ The. plan seemed .wild,
but it was carried out. He transferred his quarters and Ms army
from Portus to Eome, where he was able to establish an abundant
market, as there was no longer any obstacle to the importation
of food from Sicily. The market attracted the people of the
surroimding districts to come and settle in the deserted houses,
and in less than four 'weeks the portions of the wall which the
Goths had pulled do'^wi had been rouglily reconstructed, though
without mortar. New gates, however, could not be made so
quickly, for lack of carpenters, and when Totila appeared in
front of a gateless fortress he expected to ca])ture it with ease.
Belisarius placed in the gateways men of notable valour. For
two days the Goths spent themselves in furious attacks, suffering
great losses, but failed to carry any of the gates. After an interval
of a few days, during which they cared for their wounded and
mended their w^eapons, they renewed their assault. Totila’s
standard-bearer feU mortally wounded, and there was a fierce
fight over the corpse. The Goths recovered the standard, but
their whole army presently retreated in disorder. They were
soon flying far afield pursued by the victors. Eome for the
time was saved.^ Belisarius furnished it with new gates and
sent the keys to the Emperor.

This was the first check that Totila had experienced. While
he won battles and captured cities, Ms followers regarded him
as a god, but now in the hour of defeat they forgot all he had
done and were immoderate in their criticism. The nobles
reproached him bitterly with Ms blunder in leaving Eome in
such a condition that the enemy could occupy it ; he should
either have utterly destroyed it or held it himself. But though
there was open discontent, there was no thought of revolution.
Having demolished the bridges across the Tiber, except the

^ In April. For Totila left Rome towards end of February, and it remained
uninhabited for forty days {Cont, Marcell. ^ e.u.). ^ Probably in May 547.

246 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Milvian, Totila withdrew to Tibur, wMoh lie refortified and made
Ms headquarters.

In the course of summer he went to press the siege of
Periisia, which GotMo troops had been blockading for some time
past and which was now distressed by shortage of food. But
his attention was soon diverted to the south, which was to be
the scene of the principal operations of the war during the winter.
He had interred in Campania those senatois and their families
whom he had carried ofi after the capture of Eome. The general
John, who had been engaged in besieging Acherontia, determined
to rescue them wMle Totila was still occupied in the north.
Moving rapidly, he defeated a squadron of Gothic cavalry at
Capua, and successfully delivered many of the Eoman captives,^
whom he immediately sent by sea to the safety of Sicily. It was
a blow to Totila, for he regarded these prisoners as hostages who
might be useful hereafter, and he marched hastily and stealthily
from Perusia, with 10,000 men, into Lucania, where John
was encamped. It was a complete surprise, and few of his
enemies would have escaped if he had not committed the blunder
of attacking the camp by night, for he outnumbered them by
ten to one. But in the darkness about 900, including John,
were able to escape, and 100 were slain. The prisoners taken
were very few. Among them was an Armenian general, Gilak,
who could speak no language but his own, and knew only one
Greek word, stmtegos, general.’’ The only intelligible aiisw^’er
which Ms captors could extract from him was Gilakios stmtigos.
They put Mm to death a few days later.

The importance of holding Calabria had been realised by
John, and Belisarius appears to have anticipated before the end
of the year (a.d. 547) that the main operations in spring would
probably be in that region. Justinian, urged by Ms appeals,
sent reinforcements of more than 2000 men at the beginning
of the wunter.2 Early in the year, Belisarius committed the
charge of Eome to Conon and sailed for Sicily with 900 men.
Proceeding thence up the eastern coast of Bruttii he found Ms
voyage impeded by strong north winds, and instead of making
for Tarentiim, as he had intended, he landed at Croton, an un~

^ From t'owi. MarcelLf sub 548, one ® Among these, more than 1000
wonid infer tliat only some of the guards {dory'phoroi and hypaspistai)
women were rescued ; nonnullds under Valerian, Master of Soldiers in
liberal senatrk&s, ■ Armenia, iii. 27. 3.

XIX

SIEGE OF FOSSA NO

247

walled town. As tlie neighbourliood could not furiiisli provisions
for Ms army, lie sent Hs cavalry nortliward into tke mountains
to forage, expecting that if they met the enemy in the narrow
defiles they would be able to repulse thcmd Totila was there
with his army bent on taking the hill- town of Riiscianiini— the
modern Rossano— in wMch John had placed a garrison.^ The
disparity in numbers was immense, yet the small body of horse
inflicted , a severe defeat on' the 'Gothic host, of wdiom more
than 200 "fell. , But the Goths enjoyed a speedy revenge. The
Romans, elated by their victory, neglected their night watches and
did., not pitch their tents in one." place, so that Totila was able to
surprise and nearly exterminate", them. On hearing the news,
Belisariiis, Ms wife, and infantry '' leapt into the ships ^ and
reached Messina in one .day. .Totila laid siege to Rossano
(probably in May). .

Soon afterwards a new contingent of about 2000 arrived in
Sicily from the East. . Much larger forces were needed against
a leader of Totila \s capacity ; Belisarius was weary of conducting
a war in which, though he might gain local successes, he w^as
never strong enough to take full advantage of them; and lie

^ In .Itin, Antonini the distance
of Kossano from Thurii. is given as
12 Eonian miles. Procopius gives
its distance from tlie port of Thurii as
00 stades (nearly 9 miles). The
name of the port was Ruscia (hi.

28. 8 ' l^ovuKia iari to Oovpiiou eTripeioy,

30. 12 tVt ' l^ovciKLajf dvifyovTo); the
inland territory behind it was called
Riisciana, hence the hill-town situated
in this territory was called (cas-
triim) Ruscianum. Procopius desig-
nates the fort as to iiri 'FavctKtaprjs
cppovpiov (29. 21, and 30. 19), or r^J
'Pou(T^'iaz/tp {ppovpiip (30. 5, so one MS.,
but the other omits 'F. and it may be
a gloss). In 30. 2 evBu 'PouvKtaz'^jr
/caret, rdyos e/rXet, the text need not
be altered, as “ sailed straight to the
Ruscian territory ” is good sense.

Haury, mongiy assuming that Rus-
ciana was the name of the port,
has perversely corrected the readings
of the MSS. in three places (in 28.

8 he reads ' leaver Ktavi}^ in 30. 12
'h^ovdKtavpvy and in 30. 5 iv r{p
<fc7rt> A^ovcTKLavTj^ (ppQvpi(p), Martroye
has made the opjposite mistake and
called the fort Ruscia. The port of

Thurii can hardly have been so far
from that town as the sea-board near
Ruscia (ep. Kisseri, Ital. Lande<sk. il 2,
p. 923),

2 Procopius names two passes
between Bmttii and Lucania, Labuia,
and Petra Sanguinis {Hot pa Ai^uaro?,
iii. 28. 7). The former may mean the
east coast road (cp. Nissen, op. cU.
p. 926). The latter must be on
the inland road coming down from
Neruli { =Rotonda, on the Laus) and
Muramim ( =Morano)toInteramnium,
which corresjponds to Oastrovillari,
and is situated on the two brooks
which unite to form the Sybaris
(now the Coscile). The road went on
to Gapraria (now Tarsia, east of
Spezzano) and Gonsentia. The bound-
ary between E. Lucania and E.
Bruttii was the Grathis ; on the ivest,
I suspect that the division lay along
the N,-S. road from hleruli to Inter-
amniuin.

, ® ’Es ret? z^aus iffeir'/jdrjo-ev. Pro-
copius gives the distance from Croton
to Messina as 700 stades, about 92
English miles, which is virtually
correct.

248 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

had decided that Antonina should return to Constantinople
and implore the Impress to use all her influence to secure the
sending of such an army as the situation required. They pro-
ceeded together to Otranto, and there she embarked on a journey
which was to prove fruitless, for she arrived to find that Theodora
was dead.^ '

The garrison of Eossano, in dire need of food but expecting
aid from Belisarius, promised Totila that they would surrender
on a certain day,^ if no relief arrived, on condition that they
should be allowed to depart in safety. The commanders of the
garrison were Ghalazar, a Hun, and the Thracian Gudilas. The
attempts of Belisarius and John to bring help were frustrated,
and they then hit on the plan of forcing Totila to raise the siege
by diverting his attention elsewhere. Belisarius sailed to Eome,
and John with Valerian— a general who had been sent to Italy
six months before set out to relieve the fortresses in Picenum,
which enemy forces were besieging. But Totila was bent upon
the capture of the Bruttian fortress, and he contented himself
wdth despatching 2000 cavaky in the rear of John.

The garrison of Eossano, confident that help was approaching,
failed to keep their promise ; the appointed day passed ; and
then, when they knew that they could no longer hope, they threw
themselves on Totila’s mercy. He pardoned them all except
Chalazar, whom he shamefully mutilated and put to death.
Those soldiers who were willing to become Gothic subjects
remained in the place ; the rest were deprived of their property
and went to Croton.^

Eome needed the presence of Belisarius. Some time before,
the garrison had mutinied and slain Conon their commander.
They had then sent some clergy to Constantinople to demand
a free pardon for the murder and the payment of their arrears,
with the threat that they would deliver the city to the Goths
if these conditions were not accepted. The Emperor accepted
them. Belisarius then arrived. He saw to it that the city was

^ She died on June 28 ; see above, was made about the end of June.

^ above, p. 246, n. 2.

^ 'SUcroi'iifr]^ ^mXio-ra tT/S tov Bepovs ^ Eighty in number. The garrison
&pas is generally taken Avith €v8J!)<t€lp consisted of 300 Illyrian cavalry and
in hi, 30. 5. If so, it cannot mean, as 100 foot soldiers. There were also
it ought, the summer solstice. I in the place many Italians of good
think that it should be taken with family ; these Totila punished by
u}}io\6yit]crav, and that the bargain confiscating their property.

XIX

RECALL OF BELISARIUS

249

furiiislied with a good supply of provisions in case it should be
again besieged, and he probably weeded out the garrison. When
he left Italy for ever, early in a.d. 549, Rome was held by 3000
chosen troops, under the command of Diogenes, one of his own
retainers, whose intelligence and military capacity he trusted.

Antonina had procured without difficulty her husband's recall
Theodora's death meant the ascendancy of the i)arty which was
attached to Germanus, and the enemies and critics of Belisarius
could now make their influence felt. What had this great
general accomplished in five years ? He had simply navigated
about the coasts of Italy, never venturing to land except when
he had the refuge of a fortress. Totila desired nothing so much
as to meet him in battle, but he had never taken the field. He
had lost Rome, he had lost everything.^ He might vanquish
a general of mediocre capacity like Witigis, but it was a different
story when he had to do with a foe of considerable talent and
unflagging energy like Totila. Belisarius might have much to
say in extenuation of his failure, but the broad fact was that he
had failed. Knowing that there was no chance of his receiving
such reinforcements as might enable him to retrieve his reputa-
tion, he was glad to bid farewell to Italy.

Soon after his departure, Perusia fell, after a siege of four years.^

§ 6. Third Siege of Rome (a.i). 549)

In the summer after the departure of Belisarius, the king
of the Goths appeared for the third time before the walls of
Rome.^ He was determined to capture it, but he had abandoned
all those thoughts of destroying it which had moved him when
he first laid siege to it. He had laid to heart the letter of the
Imperial general, which other opinions had perhaps reinforced ; ^
he had come to realise — as Theoderic and Alaric had realised — ■
the meaning of Rome.

The garrison was valiant, and the commander Diogenes had
made provident preparations for an eventual siege. As there
was only a small jiopulation now, besides the garrison, there
were large areas of waste land in the city, and these were sown

^ Procopius, B.G. iil 35. 1, 2, ® At tke beginning of the 15th

repeated with additions in H.A. 5. 1-6 year of the war (Proc. B.G. hi. 36. 1),
and 17. i.e. end of June or early in July, 549.

^ A.D. 545-549. ^ Cp. below, § 8, p. 258.

250 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

with grain. Wlieii repeated attempts of the Goths to storm
the walls were foiled by the valour of the soldiers, Totila resigned
himself to the prospect of a long blockade. It was uncertain
whether relief forces would arrive from the East under a new
coinmaiider-in--chief, but as he had captured Portus^ he was in
a much more favourable position for conducting a blockade than
he had been three years before;

The blockade lasted a long time, but the city fell into his
hands at last. The circumstances of the previous capture were
repeated. Isaurian treachery again delivered Eome to the
Goth. Some Isaurian soldiers, who were keeping watch in the
south of the city at the Porta Ostiensis — ^whichwas already known
by its modern designation from the Church of the Apostle Paul
—discontented because they had received no pay for years,
and remembering the large rewards which Totila had bestowed
on their fellow-countrymen, offered to open the gate. On a pre-
arranged night, two barques ^ were launched in the Tiber,
probably to the north of the Porta Flaminia.^ They were rowed
down as close to the city as possible, and then trumpeters who
had been embarked in them sounded a loud blast. The alarm
was given, and all sections of the garrison rushed to the defence
of the walls in the threatened quarter, in the north-west. Mean-
while the Gothic army had been quietly assembled in front of the
gate of St. Paul ; the Isaurians unlocked it, and the army
marched in (January 16, a.b. 550).^

It was easy to anticipate that any of the garrison who suc-
ceeded in escaping would make for Centumcellae, the only fortress
that remained to the Imperialists in the neighbourhood of Rome,

^ Ma'pa TrXoia, “ little boats,” is either interpretation ; but he says
the reading of L (the Laurentiaii MS.), nothing about ‘‘the centre of the
and is probably right, but K (the city”; on the contrary, his words
Vatican MS.) has tt. ptaKpd (long are eireidoiv too 7repd:JuXoi< ayxitrra
boats or war-vessels). (iii. 36. 9) and eVet rp? TroXews

^ This conjecture seems more likely dyxi iy^vavro {ib. 12). As it was
than that of Hodgkin, who supposes just as easy for Totila to raise the
that the boats were launched south false alarm in the north, it seems
of the city and ordered “ to creep highly improbable that he would
up the river and blow a loud blast have chosen to attract all the soldiers
from their trumpets as near as of the garrison to the Aventine,
possible to the centre of the City” which is quite close to the Gate of
(p. 615). In this case the garrison St. Paul.

would have supposed that the attack ^ Gotis, Ital. p. 334. The year given
was to be made, as Hodgkin says, here is 549, but we should doubtless
near the Aventine. The vague words read c. Basilii vliii. - 550 (see
of Procopius are consistent with Korbs, qp. cit. p. 54).

XIX TOTlL.rS SECOND SIEGE OF ROME 251

and Totila had posted some troops along tlie western road to
intercept fugitives,. . 'Tlie:preGaution was effective ; a few escaped
the ambush,, among. whom was Diogenes. In Eoine itself there
was great slaughter, but a band of four hundred cavalry led by
Paul, who had Ijelonged to the household of Belisarius and was
the riglit-hand man of Diogenes, occupied the Mausoleum of
Hadrian and the adjacent Aelian Bridge. Here they held out
for two days. Totila expected that the cravings of hunger
would compel them to surrender, and kept troops posted on the
eastern bank. They thought of eating their horses, but could
not make up their minds to taste the unaccustomed food. On
the evening of the second day they resolved to court a heroic
death, to make a dash against the enemy and fall fighting. They
embraced one another, said their last adieiix, and prepared for
the charge. Totila was watching them and divined their
intention. He Imew that desperate men, who had devoted
themselves to death, would decimate his army. He therefore
sent a messenger offering that if they would lay down their arms
and take an oath never to fight against the Goths again, he would
let them depart unharmed to Constantinople, or if they would
fight for him, he would treat them on a perfect equality with
the Goths. The offer was gladly accepted. At first all elected
to go home, but on further reflexion they changed their minds.
They could not bring themselves to undertake the long journey
without horses or arms, they feared its perils, and if they had
any hesitation about going over to the enemy, they remembered
that the Imperial treasury had withheld their pay for years.
Only Paul himself and one other resisted the lure of the barbarian
and returned to Byzantium.

Totila bad no longer any thought of destroying Rome or of
leaving it undefended. His position was much stronger than
it had been three years before, and he had come to realise the
prestige which the possession of the Imperial city conferred
in the eyes of the world.^ He was now bent on rebuilding
and repopulatiiig it. Pie sent for the seimtors and other
Romans who were still kept under guard in the fortresses of
Campania.*^

He was planning to carry the war*into Sicily, but he first made

^ Sec below, p. 258. that all the captives had not

- B.G. iii. 35. 29 ; 37. 3. TMs been rescued by John in 547.

252 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

a new proposal of peace, just as lie liad done after his former
capture of Rome. On this occasion his envoy 'was not even
admitted to the presence of the Emperor, who had just appointed
a new comniander-in-chief to succeed Belisarius. He had
thought of entrusting the conduct of the war to his cousin,
Germanus, but changed his intention and selected Liberius, the
Roman senator, who fourteen years before had come to him
as an envoy of Theodabad, and since then had remained in his
service.^ It was a curious appointment, for Liberius, who had
served in civil capacities under Odovacar and Theoderic, had
no military experience, and he was now an octogenarian ; the
ground of his nomination must have been that as an Italian he
would inspire the Italians "with confidence.

Totila meanwhile was making preparations for his next
campaign. He collected a fleet of 400 ships of war and some
large merchant vessels, which he had recently captured from
the enemy, to convey his troops across the Sicilian Straits. It
was perhaps about the end of March that, having presided at
horse-races in the Circus Maximus, he left Rome. Before march-
ing southwards he turned aside with the hope of reducing
Centumcellae, which was now under the command of Diogenes.
This valiant officer refused to surrender until he had communi-
cated with Constantinople, but agreed that, if by a certain date
no reinforcements should arrive, he would leave the city to
the Goths. Totila consented, hostages W'Cre interchanged, and
the Gothic army marched to Rhegium, which it may have
reached early in May.^

§ 7. Proposed Expedition of Germanus (a.d. 549-550)

On the southern coasts of Italy the most important places
still held for the Empire were Hydruntum, Rhegium, Tarentum,
and Croton. The Goths now laid siege to Rhegium and captured
Tarentum, Without waiting for Rhegium to fall, Totila crossed
to Messina, which he failed to take. But he 'was at last able
to gratify one of the dearest desires of his heart and -wteak
vengeance upon the Sicilians for the 'welcome they had given

^ See above, c. xviii. p. 164. He was ® The distance of Oivita Vecchia
a Patrician, and had been appointed from Eome is about 75 kils. ;
Prefect of Alexandria, c, 541; see from Rome to Rhegium less than
below, p. 380. 700.

XIX

GERM ANUS APPOINTED COMMANDER

253

Belisarius fifteen years: before. His army ravaged tlie island
without resistance. Meanwhile Ehegiimi. which was short of
provisions, surrendered.

The news of these menacing successes seems to have made
a greater impression at Constantinople than the recent capture
of Rome. The Emperor reverted to his former plan of sending
Germanus to tlie West as commander-in-chief. But Germanus
could not start until he had collected an army sufficiently strong
to end the war, and in the meantime Liberiiis was despatched
to defend Sicily. He had hardly vset sail before it was recognised
that he was too old and inexperienced, and Axtabanes,^ who was
appointed Master of Soldiers in Thrace, was sent to supersede
him.

Germanus was now regarded as the probable heir to the
Imperial throne. The death of Theodora had removed the
adverse influence which might have withheld the Emperor from
favouring his claim.^ He had already established his reputation
by suppressing the Moorish rebellion of Stutzas, and he was
ambitious of enhancing it by recovering Italy and succeeding
where Belisarius had failed. As the prestige of the dynasty
was involved, the Emperor was prepared to spend money in
a less stinting spirit than he had shown hitherto in the conduct
of the Italian war ; and Germanus had considerable private
resources which he did not hesitate to devote to the collection
of troops. The raising of an army for services not connected
with the defence of the frontiers had come to be the task of the
commander who was to lead it. None of the standing troops
in the East could be withdrawn, although some of the cavalry
squadrons stationed in Thrace might be spared. Germanus,
with his sons, Justin and Justinian, busily recruited volunteers
in the highlands of Thrace and Illyricum, and bands of barbarians
from the Danubian regions flocked to his standards. The king
of the Lombards promised a thousand heavily armed warriors.
The private retainers of many generals left their less illustrious
masters to attach themselves to the service of Germanus.

But besides these preparations for a vigorous military offensive,

^ Aiijabanes had recently been im- self. But everything points to the
plicated in a conspiracy; see p. 67 fact that it was generally taken for
above. granted that he would succeed, and

“ He was never formally designated, that Justinian was contented that
and Justinian never committed him- this ojjinion should prevail.

■254

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the plan of Gennanus included what might be called a moral
offensive, on which he coimted much and with good reason.
He contracted a Gothic marriage. He took as his second wife
the queen Matasuntha. As the reluctant consort of Witigis
she had been once queen of the Goths, but it was as the grand-
daughter of king Theoderic and sister of king Athalaric that
she had the strongest claims on their loyalty and affection. If
her mother had brought her up in the ways of Eoman civilisation,
vshe was of the purest Amal lineage, and Gennanus might con-
fidently hope that the effect of his coming as her husband, and
presumably in her company, would be to undermine the allegiance
of many of the Goths to Totila, or at least to embarrass their
minds in such a way as to impair their military vigour. They
would feel that they were fighting no longer merely against
Greeks, but against the granddaughter of their greatest king.
And they would calculate that, as Germanus was marked out to
succeed to the Empire on Justinian’s death, Matasuntha would
presently share the Imperial throne.^

When the news of the marriage reached Italy it seems to have
produced the effect which was anticipated. Many Goths began
to ask themselves whether it would be well to continue their
resistance. And the reports which arrived of the Imperial
preparations for prosecuting the war affected the numerous
soldiers who had deserted the Eoman cause to serve under Totila.
They managed to send messages to Germanus that as soon as he
landed in Italy they would go over to him and fight again
under the standards they had abandoned. Diogenes, who had
agreed to surrender Centumcellae on a certain day, declared
himself absolved from the covenant because Germanus was
coming.

But Germanus was not to come. He was at Sardica, and his
army was ready. It was the autumn of a.d. 550.^ He had
announced that he would start in two days, when he suddenly
fell sick, and the disease proved fatal. His death meant much.

^ Wrotii has an interesting con- have been minted at Constantinople
jectiire on the coins of Matasuntha in 550. The issue of such coins
(bearing her name in monogram), would have been a very natural way
which are generally assumed to have of asserting the queen’s claim to the
been issued in 536-540, when she was Ostrogothio throne,
queen of Witigis. Pointing out that

there is nothing Italian about the ^ Perhaps in September. Cp.
coins, he conjectures that they may Kerbs, qp. cit 48-49.

XIX

TOT I LA IN SICILY

255

It meant particularly the destruction of the hopes which were
swaying opinion in Italy both, among Italians and GothsI

^ 8. TotilaM Sirnly. Negotiatiom wi^^^

{A.B. 650 -^ 551 )

The .plans for. the prosecution of the war were disconcerted
by the death of the commander-in-chief, and Justinian appointed
no one to replace him for some time. But in the meantime it wms
arranged that John, the nephew of Vitalian, who was now the
Master of Soldiers in Illyricum, and was to have served under
his father-in-law, Germanus, should, with his brother-in-law,
Justinian, lead the army to Italy. John had proved himself
an able soldier, and if he and Belisarius had been able to work
cordially together, it is probable that the duration of the war
would have been considerably curtailed. He was not appointed
to the supreme command because it was felt that he did not
possess the requisite prestige to command the obedience of the
other generals.

When the troops were collected in Dalmatia it was late in
the year, and it was thought better to spend the winter there
than to march immediately to Venetia. There was no sufficient
supply of ships at Salona to transport the army across the
Hadriatic.

Meanwhile Totila had been .wreaking his vengeance upon
Sicily. MT3.en he was besieging Syracuse, Liberiiis arrived, and
seeing that he was not strong enough to help the city he sailed
on to Panormus. Artabanes, who, as we saw, had been appointed
to replace Liberiiis, was already on his way, but his ships were
caught oS. the coast of Calabria by a storm w'hich drove them

^ Matasuntha bore a posthumous gens is imkiio^vii ; Mommsen con-
son who was called by the name of jectured that his mother might have
his father, and is mentioned in the been a daughter of Juliana Anicia,
Geiica of Jordanes (which seems to daughter of the Emperor Olybriiis
have been conij^osed in a.i>. 551, or and Placidia. Erom the fact that
at latest 552, before the issue of the Joi'danes looked upon this infant as
war for Itaty was decided). The the hope of the Ostrogothic race,
w'ords of Jordanes are (§ 314) : Schirren {Be ratlone quae inter

liumatum patris Germa?ii natus est lordanem et Cassiodorum iniercedlt)
filius idem Germanus, in quo coniuThCta drew the hardly justiliable conclusion
Aniciorum genus cum Amala that the motif of the book Avas

S2)em adhuc titriusque generi domino political— to promote the idea of
praestante promittit. The exact conr reconciling Goth and Italian under
nexion of Germanus with the Anician the rule of Germanus.

256 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

back to Greece. The Goths succeeded in capturing only four
fortresses, probably places of secondary importance, in which
they placed garrisons, and having lived in the island for many
months,^ they returned to Italy laden with booty and provisions.

During the summer and autumn of this year (a.b, 650) the
Imperial generals in Italy were inactive, though the absence of
Totila in Sicily was an opportunity for an enterprising leader.
Then the news arrived that the Emperor had appointed the
Armenian eunuch Narses to the supreme command. The
appointment w^as universally welcomed. Narses, the Grand
Chamberlain, appears to have been one of the most popular
ministers at Justinian’s court. He was celebrated for his
generosity, he did not make enemies, and such was his reputa-
tion for piety that it was believed that the Virgin Mother herself
watched over his actions .and suggested the right moment for
engaging in battle.^ He was a friend of John, whom, as it will
be remembered, he had forced Belisarius to rescue at Eimini,
and of whose loyal co-operation he was assured. This fact, we
may conjecture, had a good deal to do with his appointment.
Narses had the qualities of a leader, but he had not much
military experience ; the advice of John would remedy this
deficiency.

John had been ordered to await the arrival of the new com-
mander-in-chief at Salona, but Narses was delayed on his way,
at Philippopolis, by an invasion of Kotrigur Hiins,^ and it was
probably late in a.d. 551 that he arrived in Dalmatia.

Fortune had steadily favoured the Goths for the last four
years. In a.d. 547 the Imperialists held in central Italy Ravenna,
Ancona, and Ariminum, Spoletium and Perusia, Rome itself
with Portus, Centumcellae ; in the south Otranto, Taranto, the
province of Bruttii, and Sicily. In a.d. 551 the only important
places they held on the mainland were Ravenna, Ancona,
Otranto, and Croton, while in Sicily they had lost four strong-
holds ; and Totila, on returning from Sicily, had sent an army
to besiege Ancona. This tide of success was now about to turn.

y The dates of Totila’s arrival in ^ Evagriiis, ILE, iv. 24.

Sicily and his departure are not ^ See below, p. 303. A' arses had
marked very clearly by Procopius, left Constantinople about June acc.
but we can deduce from the data that to our text of John Malalas, xviii.
he must have reached the island p, 484; but Theophanes, who was
in May and left it before the end copying Malalas, says April (a.m.
of the year. 6043).

XIX

NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE FEANKS

257

Ever since Totila liad crossed the Po after liis accession, the
war had been waged entirely to the south of that river, and the
conditions which prevailed in northern Italy are obscure. Here
the situation was complicated by the intervention of a third
power. As all the forces of the Ostrogoths' 'were demanded by
the struggle in the south, the Franks had seized the opportunity
to extend their power into Italy. . Theodebert, who followed
the progress of the war attentively, had occupied the province
of the Cottian Alps, a part of Liguria, and the greater part of
Venetia.^ The only important cities which the Goths still
retained seem to have been Verona and Ticinuiii. Some time
afterwards a treaty was concluded between the Franks and
Goths, by which Totila acquiesced in the provisional occupation
by the Franks of the territory which had been seized, and the
two powers agreed, in case the war ended with a Gothic victory,
to make a new permanent arrangement.^ Far-reaching plans
are attributed to Theodebert. He was incensed at Justinian’s
assumption of the titles Ffcmcious and Alamminicus, with the
implication that the Franks and their subjects the Alamanni
had been subjugated and were vassals of the Empire, and he
expressed his formal independence by issuing gold coins with his
own bust and his own name,® He was the first German king
to venture on this innovation, which from a commercial point
of view was hazardous. It vras said that he formed the project
of leading the German nations, the Lombards, the Gepids,
and others through the IIl)rrian countries and attacking Con-
stantinople itself.

We possess one diplomatic document, belonging to this
period, which records the Italian conquests of the Franks. The
Emperor had written to Theodebert requesting information as
to the extent of his dominions, and Theodebert’s reply has
been preserved,^ in which he enumerates Pannonia and the
northern parts of Italy among the countries which he has
subjugated.

After his capture and abandonment of Eome in a.d. 547,

^ Procopius, B.G. iii. 33. 7 ; iv.
24. 4 and 6-8. The Romans stiU
held coast places in Venetia.

2 Procopius, ib, 9-10 and 27.

® Agathias, i. 4. Procopius, ih, iii,
VOL. II

33. Op. Keary, Coinages of Western
Europe^ p. 22.

^ E‘pp, Mer. aeui, iii. ; Epp. A^istras.
20. Theodore and Solomon are
mentioned as the Imperial envoys to
the Frank court.

258 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Totila liad proposed to espouse tlie daiigliter of one of tlie
Merovingian kings wlio is not named/ but we are entitled to
presume that lie was Theodebert. The offer was refused, on
the ground that Totila would never succeed in the subjugation
of Italy, seeing that he had shown himself so foolish as to let
the great capital slip from his hands/ This criticism helped to
open the Ostrogoth’s eyes to the importance of Eome. In the
following year, Theodebert died and was succeeded by his son
Theodebald.^ To him Justinian sent an ambassador to com-
plain of the encroachments of his father in northern Italy, to
demand the evacuation of the cities, and to request him to
fulfil the promises of Theodebert and co-operate in the Italian
war/ Theodebald promptly sent an embassy to Constantinople/
The course of the negotiations is unknown, but the Franks
remained in Italy.

§ 9. Battle of Sena Gallica (a.d. 551)

Totila realised that a supreme effort was now to be made to
destroy the Ostrogothic power in Italy. The appointment of
Narses was hardly less significant than the appointment of
Germanus. He had always understood the importance of
reconciling the Itahans to his rule, and he now urgently pressed
forward the rebuilding of Eome in order to ingratiate himself
with the Eomans. His immediate military objects were the
capture of Ancona and Croton, two of the few valuable places
that were still left to the Empire. In the autumn of a.d. 651,
his forces, as we saw, were besieging Ancona, but it is probable
that he had not yet sent an army against Croton. At the same

^ Procopius, iii. 37. 1-2.

2 Gregory of Tours, Hist Fr. iii.
36 (for date, 37 ad says he died
of a long illness ; Agathias, i. 4, says
he was killed, hunting, by a wild bull.

® The date of this embassy (which
Hodgkin assigns to 551) cannot be
inferred from the fact that Procopius
notices it after the embassy of Totila
in 551 (iv. 24. 11) ; for here he
digresses, d projyos of the Franks, and
goes back to Theodebert. I have
little doubt that the embassy was
sent in 549-550, when the preparations
were afoot for the expedition of

Germanus, and that it bore to
Theodebald Justinian’s congratulat-
ory letter on his accession, in which
the Em|)eror took occasion to say
hard words of his father’s conduct,
and to which Theodebald’s reply
is preserved {F'pP' Austras. IS).

^ It may be conjectured that it
was on this occasion that Theodebald
attached some Angles to his embassy,
to show the Emperor that his auth-
ority extended to Britain. See Pro-
copius, iv. 20. 10. These Angies
doubtless supplied Procopius with
the material for his curious account
of that island.

XIX

BATTLE OF SENA GALLIC A

259

time^ iie was employing Iiis fleet. Three hundred vessels sailed
to the shores of Greece. The rich island of Gorcyra,. was ravaged,
and on the mainland the districts ■around Nicopolis, Anohialus,
and Dodona. , . Transports conveying, supplies 'to' ..the army of
Narses .at Salo.na were, intercepted and captured.

The garrison of Ancona was hard pressed, for it was blockaded
by sea as well as by land. Forty-seven Gothic worships hindered
any provisions from reaching it by sea. The general, Valerian,
who was stationed at Eavenna and was not strong enough to
send relief, wrote to John at Salona an urgent letter on the
gravity of the situation. John promptly manned thirty-eight
warships with seasoned menj and at Scardona, higher up the
Dalmatian coast, they were joined by twelve more which came
across from Eavenna with Valerian. The two generals and
their fleet sailed to Sena Gallica, of which the distance by sea
to Ancona is about seventeen miles. The two squadrons were
practically equal in strength, aM the Gothic commanders,
Indulf and Gibal,^ immediately determined to risk a naval
battle, and sailed to Sena.

The action, as in a land battle, was begun by the archers ;
then some of the vessels closed with each other, and the crews
fought with sword and lance. But the Goths were at a great
disadvantage. They had not the natural aptitude of the Greeks
for handling ships, and they can have had very little training
in the operations of maritime warfare. They were unable, in
the excitement of the action, to maintain a suitable distance
between their ships. Some of these were too far from their
neighbours and were easily sunk by the enemy, but most of
them were too close together and had no room to manoeuvre.
Their opponents, on the other hand, kept perfect order, and with
cool readiness took advantage of all the blunders of the Goths,
who at last, weary and helpless, gave up the contest and fled.
Thirty-six Gothic ships were sent to the bottom and Gibal was
captured; Indulf escaped mth eleven ships, which he burned
as soon as he landed, and reached the camp at Ancona. When

^ It is clear that Narses tad not yet ® Indulf had formerly been a
arrived at Salona, for Vrocopins retato Belisariiis. The MSS.

says that John took upon himself of Procopius (iii. 35. 23 and 29; iv,
to disobey the Imperial command 12) vary between ’l\aov(p, Av8o}j\<fe,
that he should not stir till Narses and VovpdovXtp. I have fol-

came. lowed Haury,

260 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE cpiap,

the victorious fleet arrived; they found that the enemy had
abandoned the camp and taken refuge in Auximiim. The
crushing victory meant more than the safety of Ancona, it dealt
a heavy blow to the power and prestige of the Goths.^

Soon after this Artabanes, who had arrived in Sicily/recovered
the four fortresses which the Goths had captured; The tide
seemed to have definitely turned, and the Goths were acutely
conscious of the change in their prospects. They felt that if
the enemy came in strength they would be unable to hold out.
Once more Totila sent ambassadors to Constantinople to propose
terms of peace, ofiering to resign the claim to Sicily and Dalmatia,
and to pay the taxes to which the tenantless estates in those
provinces were liable. But the Emperor refused to listen to
the pleadings of the envoys. He was so bitter against the
Ostrogoths that he had determined to expunge their name from
the map of the Eoman world.

One more success was achieved by Totila, though it was
perhaps purchased too dearly. He had sent a fleet to Corsica
and Sardinia with forces sufficient to overcome the Eoman
garrisons. As those islands belonged to the African Prefecture,
it devolved upon John, the Master of Soldiers in Africa, to
defend them, and he sent an army to Sardinia (autumn, a.b. 551).
It was defeated near Cagliari, and sailed back to Carthage, to
return in the spring in greater strength. Whatever prestige
Totila gained by the occupation of the islands can hardly have
counterbalanced the disadvantage of reducing the numbers of
his fighting forces in Italy, when every man was needed for the
approaching struggle with the armies of Narses.

During the spring Croton was hard pressed by the Goths
who were blockading it. No one came to its relief imtil the
Emperor, hearing that it would inevitably fall unless speedy
help arrived, ordered the troops stationed at Thermopylae to
embark immediately and sail thither. The mere appearance
of the relief squadron in the harbour sufficed to terrify the
besiegers, who hastily broke up their camp and fled. The
effect of this bloodless victory was that the commanders of the
Gothic garrisons in Tarentum and Acherontia offered to sur-
render those places on condition that their own safety was
secured. Their proposals were referred to the Emperor.

1 B.Q, iv. 24 42.

XIX

BATTLE OF BUSTA GALLORUM

261

§ 10. Baffle of Biisfa GaUormn and Death of Totila (a.d. 552)

In the spring of a/d. 552 Narses was at length ready to set
out for Italy. He had collected large forces in addition to those
whicli had been recruited two years before by Germanus, and

[

liincry "Walker Ltd. sc.

raiBRIA TO ILLUSTRATE THE BATTLE OF BUSTA GALLORUM, A.D. 552.

which had remained at Salona under the command of John.
We are not told what was the entire strength of the army,
though we know the number of some of the particular con-
tingents. The Lombard King Audoin sent more than 5500
fighting men ; ^ there were more than 3000 Heriils ; ^ there were

^ Two thousand five hundred^^^^^^^^^ ^ More than 3000 under PMlernuth

warriors and a comitatus (Oepairda) and others ; and many others under
of more than 3000. Aruth, a Romanised Ilerul.

262 HISTORY OF THE rATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

400 Gepids ; there were Huns, ^ of course, and there was a band
of Persian deserters.^ All these foreign auxiliaries can hardly
have amounted to less than 11,000. For the regular Imperial
regiments which the Emperor placed at the disposal of Narses,
for the Thracian and Illyrian troops which Germanus and Narses
had specially recruited at their own expense we have no figures,
but it will not be extravagant to suppose that they were more
numerous than the foreign contingents, and to conjecture 26,000
as a probable figure for the strength of the whole army which
marched with Narses from Salona along the Dalmatian coast
road to the head of the Hadriatic.^

The towns and forts which commanded the road from the
east into Venetia were in possession of the Franks, and Narses,
when he approached the Venetian borders, sent envoys to the
commanders asking them to permit a friendly army to pass in
peace. The request was refused on the pretext that Lombards
who were bitter foes of the Franks accompanied the Imperial
army. Then Narses learned that, even if the Franks did not
oppose his passage, he would be held up when he reached the
Adige, inasmuch as Texas, one of the most capable of Totila’s
captains, had arrived at Verona with all the best Gothic troops,
to hinder and embarrass his march. Every possible measure
had been taken to make the road from the Adige to Eavenna im-
practicable. By the advice of John, who -was acquainted wdth
the country, it was decided that the troops should march along
the sea coast from Istria, attended by a few ships and a large
fleet of small boats to transport them across the mouths of the
rivers. Time was lost, but Ravenna was safely reached. But
it is curious that an expedition for which long preparations had
been made should have been allowed to find itself in such a
predicament. One would have thought that an adequate fleet
of transports could have been collected at Salona to convey
the whole army direct to Classis.^

^ Very numerous (7ra;a7rX9?0eis). ^ to oppose tkeir landing. B.G,

Under Kavad, grandson of king iv. 26. 23. For the coast route,
Kavad, and nejAew of Chosroes. marked in the Tabula Peid., from

^ Harpnann, Gesch, Halims^ i. p. Ilavenna to Altinum, via Ad Padum,
346, conjectures 30,000. ^ and Hadria, see Miller,

P Totiia was aware of the deficiency Jim, pp. 309-311. The Goths had
of transpoi'ts, and had hoped that probably beset the road and destroyed
if the troops were conveyed in relays the bridges of the Meduaco, the Adige,
to Italian ports he w^ould be easily and the Po, and Karses made his way

XIX

BATTLE OF BUST A GALLORUM

263

At Eaveniia the army rested for nine days and was reinforced
by, the troops of Justin and Valerian, ..Then,. leaving Justin iu'
charge of Eavenna, ,' Narses ' pushed 'southward along the coast
road. He was determined not ■ to ■ spend time' or strength in
lesser operations, but to come face to 'face with Totilamid decide
the issue of the war by a battle involving all the forces of both
belligerents. Totila was in the neighbourhood of Eonie, and
therefore it. was on the road to Eome that Harses hastened.
When he reached Ariminum he found that the bridge across the
.... river had been destroyed. His engineers bridged it, and he,:
might easily have taken the town, for the commander of the
garrison, who had sallied out to see what the Eomans were
doing, was slain by a Herul. But Narses did not tarry ; Ari-
minum could wait. In ordinary circumstances the quickest
route for an army marching from Ariminum to Eome was along
the coast as far as Fanum and thence by the Via Flaminia.
But this way was not open to Narses, for the eastern end of the
Via Flaminia was commanded by the enemy who were in
possession of Petra Pertusa, a barrier which might be found
insuperable. It was therefore necessary for him to strike the
road at some point to the west of that fortress. We do not
know whether he left the coast near Aiiminum or further on,
at Pisaurum. In either case he probably reached the Via
Flaminia about five miles on the Eomeward side of the
gorge of Petra Pertusa, at a place which is now known as
Acqualagna.

In the meantime Totila, learning that Narses had reached
Eavenna, had recalled Teias and his army from Venetia, and,
as eager for battle as Narses, set out for the north. It is not
clear where he expected to encounter the Imperialists,^ but
when the news reached him that the enemy had left Eavenna
and passed Ariminum he struck into the Apennines by the Via

throxigli the lagoons with the help of June or first days of July,
of boats from Altiniim as far as Ad ^ Waiting h rots eVi xaj/}to6j

Padum, which was 24 Boman miles till the troops of Teias arrived, he

north of Eavenna. The date of his marched intending to choose his own
arrival in Eavenna was on a Thursday ground for the battle, ws rois iroXe-
in June (see Agneilus, c. 62, where iTrtrrjdelq) inra.vTido'cay yeu

the month is a mistake) ; Kdrbs iv. 29. 2. Procopius does

{op. cit. 84) thinks it was on June 6, not record the number of his forces,

and this suits the probable date of but it is not probable that, even

the battle of Busta Oallornm, which with the 2000 which arrived late,
cannot be placed later than the end he had many more than 15,000.

264'

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Flaminia and encamped near (probably to the north of) Tadinum.^
Immediately afterwards the army of Narses reached the neigh-
bourhood and encamped at a place of which the namep Biista
Galloruin, preserved a tradition of the wars of the early Roman
republic with the Celts of the north. The only other clue the
historian gives us as to its position is the statement that it was
about fourteen miles from the camp of Totila. We may con-
jecture that the place is to be sought to the east of the Flaminian
Way, in the neighbourhood of Fabriano.

As soon as his army had encamped, Narses sent some trusted
officers to Totila, to recommend him to make submission without
attempting to oppose much superior forces, and, if he were
determined to fight, to invite him to name a day for the battle.
Totila would not hear of peace or submission. He said, Let
us do battle in eight days.’’ But Narses was too shrewd to
trust the Goth’s word. He guessed that Totila would attack
him on the next day and made his preparations for battle. So
it fell out. The Goths moved during the night, and at dawn the
Romans saw their army drawn up within two bowshots of their
own line.

Narses placed the Lombards, the Heruls, and the other
barbarian auxiliaries in the centre. They were mounted troops
but he made them dismount and used them as infantry. On
the two wings he posted his regular troops, on the right, under
himself and John, on the left under Valerian, Dagisthaeus, and
John Phagas ; and in front of each wing he stationed 4000
archers. Beyond the extremity of his left, he placed a reserve
of 1500 cavalry. Of these one squadron of 500 was to bring
help to any part of the line that might be hard pressed ; ^ the
other body of 1000 was to attempt, when the Gothic infantry
were engaged, to ride round and take them in the rear.

Narses had chosen a strong defensive position. It was such
that the only way by which the enemy could send a detachment
to circumvent him and attack him from behind was a narrow
path which ran by the slopes of a small hill close to his left wing.

^ Close to the modern village ^ natural x)osition for such a
Gualdo Tadiiio. Proeoxhus gives the reserve would have been in the centre,
name as Tayipat but the identity Narses must have placed it on the
is unquestionable. For the topo- left, because he anticij^ated that it
graphical questions see Appendix to would be most likely to be needed on
this chapter. that side.

X!X

BATTLE OF BUST A GALLO RUM

265

It was, therefore, important to hold this position, and before
daybreak .fifty men stationed themselves in the bed of a stream
on the slope of the MU facing the Goths. When Totila espied
them he sent a squadron of horse to dislodge them, but the
Eomans held their ground against repeated attacks, performing
prodigies of valour. Others were sent, but with the same
result, and Totila abandoned the attempt. In the meantime
the armies did not join battle. Narses, in his strong position,
was determined not to attack first, and Totila had a reason for
delaying the action. He was expecting every moment a force
of 2000 cavalry under the command of Texas, who had not
arrived in time to march with the main army. Outmatched as
he was in numbers by the enemy, this reinforcement was of
supreme importance; it might decide the issue of the day.
Accordingly he resorted to devices to gain time. Coccas, a
horseman of great physical strength, who had deserted from the
Imperial to the Gothic side, rode up to the Roman line within
speaking distance and challenged the enemy to send out a
champion to engage with him in single combat. Anzalas, an
Armenian, one of the retainers of Narses, accepted the invitation.
Coccas rode .hard at him, aiming at his stomach, but Anzalas
made his own horse swerve just in time to avoid the lance and
at the same moment struck at his opponent's left side. Coccas
fell mortally /wounded, and cries of triumph rang out from the
Roman ranks. After this interlude, Totila himself, caparisoned
in shining armour, adorned with gold and purple trimmings,
rode out into the space between the armies, on a huge steed,
and displayed, for the benefit of the enemy, his equestrian skill,
hurling his spear in the air and catcMng it again as he galloped,
and performing other feats of horsemanship. Finally he sent
a message to Narses, proposing negotiations, but Narses knew
that he was not in earnest.

By these devices Totila wore a’way the forenoon, and at
length in the early afternoon the belated two thousand arrived.
The Goths immediately dissolved their array of battle and
retired within the precincts of their camp to dine. Apparently
Totila was confident that Narses would not attack,^ and that

^ It may be thought strange that of the strength of his defensive
Narses did not attack, but he position. Op, jDelbruck,
was determined to avail himself ii. 372.

266 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

tlie Komans would likewise break their ranks for the purpose
of a meal. He thought that he might possibly take them un-
awares. But their cautious commander did not aUow them to
move from their places or take ofi their armour or lie down to
rest. They took food as they stood.

In the morning the array of the Goths had been much
the same as that of the Imperial army, but when they returned
to fight in the afternoon, Totila adopted an entirely different
plan. He placed all his cavalry in front and all his infantry

Valerian

1^3

Cavalry

Lombards, Heruls &c.

cz::.zizz]

Cavalry ^
Narses

Hill

Cavalry

Infantry

GOTHS

behind. His idea seems to have been that his best chance was
to attempt to break the enemy ranks by a concentrated charge
of all his horse, and then bring np his infantry (probably few in
number) to take advantage of the confusion which his cavalry
had wrought. And he issued the extraordinary command that
all the troops alike should discard the use of all weapons except
their spears.

To meet the tactics of the Goths Narses made a slight change
in his dispositions. The two large bodies of archers on the
wings, ^ which had faced the enemy full front, were now turned
half round so as to form crescents facing each other ; and when
the Gothic cavalry charged they were assailed from both sides

^ They must have been on elevated have been swept away by the Gothic
ground above the plain, or they would cavalry. Delbruck,i:r je<;67c«n5j5,ii. 375.

XIX

267

mTTLB OF BUSTA::,GAFLOmM'

by showers of arrows and suffered considerable losses before
they came to grips with the main line. The' battle wvas fierce,,
but , apparently short, and towards evening the Goths gave way
and were gradually pressed back on the infantry who: had hitherto
taken no part in the fighting, and now, instead of opening a
way for the cavalry to pass through their ranks and themselves
facing the enemy, turned and retreated with them. The retreat
soon became a flight. About 6000 were slain ; many were
taken alive, to be put to death afterwards ; all the rest fled as
they could.

The description of this battle, which we owe to the historian
Procopius, and w^hich he doubtless derived from an eyewitness,
is so deficient in details that it is difficult to form any definite
opinion as to the merits of the combatants. Above all, we do
not know the numbers of either army. We are not told how
Totila and his ablest general Texas behaved during the action,
nor whether the wings or the centre of the Imperialists were the
more heavily engaged. Praise is given to the bravery of the
barbarian troops of Narses and of '' some of the Eomans,” but
the military critics of the day seem to have ascribed the swift
discomfiture of the Goths largely to the strange order of their king
that the spear only was to be used. We can, however, divine
that Totila’s generalship was deficient and that, even if his forces
were inferior in number, he might have made better use of them.

But in spite of the slightness of our information as to the
course of the battle, it is clear that Narses displayed exceptional
military talent and deserves full credit for his victory. His
plan was original, differing entirely from the tactics employed
by Belisariiis in the Persian campaigns. He opposed unmounted
troops to the mounted troops of the enemy, and used his bowmen
to weaken and disconcert the charge of the cavalry. Thus
aided, the barbarian auxiliaries did what the Eoman infantry
had failed to do on the field of Hadrianople, and resisted the
shock of the Gothic horsemen. The battle has been described
as ‘'the first experiment in the combination of pike and bow
which modern history shows,” and reminds us of the battle
of Cregy which was won by similar tactics.^

Totila himself had fled in the dark and there were various

^ Oman, 0 / IFrif, p. 35. Tacti- against enemy cavalry; cp. the
cians of the time had contemplated passage of XJrhicius quoted in Pseudo -
battles fought by Roman infantry Maurice, /SVai. xii. 24.

268 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

stories as to wliat befell liim. According to one tale, accom-
paniecl by four or five of Ms followers lie was pursued by Asbad
the Gepid leader, and some others who were unaware of his
identity. Overtaking Mm ' Asbad; was about , to strike when a
Gothic youth cried, '' Dog, will you smite your master ? ” The
Gepid drove his spear with all Ms might into Totila’s body,
but was himself wounded by one of the king’s companions.
The Goths dragged their wounded lord for about seven miles,
not halting till they reached Caprae, a village not, far from Tadi-
num. / .Here he died, and was hastily buried. His fate and place
of sepulture were revealed to the Eomans by a Gothic woman ;
the body was exhumed and identified ; the blood-stained garments
and the cap adorned with gems which he had worn were taken
to Harses, who sent them to Constantinople, where they were
laid at the feet of the Emperor as a visible proof that the enemy
who had so long defied Ms power was no more.^

A leader who has fought a long fight in a not ignoble cause
and failed in the end wdll always arouse some sympathy and
pity, with whatever satisfaction we may view his failure. The
sudden reversal of Totila’s fortune after an almost unbroken
career of success had just the elements of tragedy which appealed
even to the imagination of Ms enemies. He had revived the
cause of his nation when it seemed utterly lost and restored their
hope, and in a struggle of nine years, in which he displayed
untiring energy, unwavering confidence, and some political
capacity, had reconquered the whole of Italy except three or
four towns. But this long run of success does not argue that
he possessed transcendent talents. He owed it to the fact that
the Emperor starved his military forces in Italy, refused to send
the necessary supplies of money and men, and at first did not
even appoint a supreme commander. As soon as Justinian
decided, after the return of Belisarius, to make a serious effort
to end the war and adopted proper measures for the purpose,
the situation began immediately to change, and all that Totila
had achieved in nine years was undone in two. But though
the weakness and mistakes of Ms enemies were chiefly responsible
for Totila’s fame, though he did not possess military genius of a

^ Here John Mai. xviii. p. 486 which evidently belonged to the
supplements Procopius. The passage original text of Malalas but is omitted
was transcribed by Tlieophaxies, in ours (/cal ippl(pri<Tav €i$ roiis rrodas
sub A.M. 6044, who adds a sentence rov jSacriXews iTri aeKp’rjTov).

XIX

DEATH OF TOTILA

260

higli ordeij and was capable of such a political blunder as the
abandonment of Eome when he had captured it, he will always be
remembered as one of the great figures in the German heroic age.

Some modern writers have idealised him as a romantic hero,
distinguished among all his barbarian fellows by chivalrous
sentiments and noble , behaviour towards his foes, gentle and
hiiniaiie in his instincts. It is difficult to find much in the record
of, his acts to jnstify such a conceptio,n of the man. 'He' was
clear-sighted enough to realise that it was good policy to con-
ciliate the Italians and to attract' to his standards deserters
from the Imperial army, and for these purposes he often showed
a moderation which in time of war was unusual. Perhaps Ms
considerate treatment’ of the inhabitants of Naples, which the
historian Procopius ungrudgingly admired, has won for him a
reputation which his conduct on other occasions can hardly be
said to bear out. But his friendliness to the Neapolitans was
plainly dictated by policy. It was to reward them for the
obstinate resistance they had offered to BelisaHus eight years
before, and Totila intended it to be contrasted with the punish-
ment which he hoped to inflict upon the Sicilians who had received
Belisarius with open arms. In the practice of deliberate cruelties
can it be said that there is much to choose between this Ostro-
goth and other leaders of his race and age ? What instinct of
clemency can we attribute to the man who mutilated Demetrius
at Naples, who cut off the hands of the bishop from Porto,
who put Isaac the Armenian to death, who did not spare his
unhappy captive Gilacius, who shamefully mutilated Chalazar ?
What are we to say of the assassination of Cyprian at Perusia ?
Can we call liim humane who suffered the bishop and inhabitants
of Tibur to be done to death in such atrocious fashion that the
historian declines to describe the treatment ? Did he treat
the inhabitants of Eome as leniently as Alaric or Gaiseric ?
Narses had no illusions about his character, and it was well
for him that, when Totila nam^ed a clay for the great battle
which was to be fought between them, he did not imagine him
to be a pure chevalier, but knew him for an ordinary perfidious
barbarian and took corresponding precautions.^

^ Totila’s reputation for cruelty is he condemned Cerbonius, bishop of
illustrated by the story told by Popuionium, to be thro\m to a bear
Pope Gregory I. {Dial 3, c. 11) that because he had given shelter to some

270 HISTORY OF TEE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

§ 11. BaMle ofMons Lactarius (a.b. 552)

The first act of Narses after his great success, for which he
piously ascribed all the credit to the Deity, was to dismiss his
savage allies, the Lombards, who, as soon as the victory was
won, were devoting themselves to the congenial occupations of
arson and rape. He rewarded them with large sums of gold,
and committed to Valerian the task of conducting them to the
Italian frontier. When Valerian had parted from these un-
desirable friends, he encamped outside Verona and parleyed
with the Gothic garrison. The Goths were willing to capitulate,
but the Franks who were firmly stationed in the Venetian
province intervened and the negotiations were broken ofi.
Valerian withdrew to the Po, and Narses ordered him to remain
there to watch the movements of the Goths, who had not yet
given up their cause as lost. The remnant of Totila’s army
had fled with Teias northward to Ticinuni. There Te'ias was
elected king,^ and he hoped with the help of the Franks to restore
the fortunes of his people. He had at his disposal the treasures
which Totila had prudently left in Ticinum.

In the meantime Harses himself had advanced on Home.
On his way he occupied Narnia and Spoleto, and sent a detach-
ment to take Perusia. The Gothic garrison in Eome was much
too small to attempt to defend the great circuit of the city,
and Totila had constructed a little fortress round the Mausoleum
of Hadrian by building a new wall attached to the external wall.
When the army of Narses arrived, the Goths made some attempt
to hold the fortifications wherever they were attacked, but the
Imperialists soon succeeded in scaling the wall with ladders
and opening the gates. The garrison then retreated into the
inner fortress; some escaped to Portus. But seeing that
further defence was useless they surrendered on condition
that their lives were spared. This was the fifth time that
Eome had been assaulted and captured during the war.

soldiers of the Imperial army. Totila version of Androoles and the lion. But
expected to enjoy the spectacle of the it shows Totila’s reputation,
execution, but the bear lay do’vvn and

licked the bishop’s feet. Though ^ His father’s name was Fritigern.
Gregory appeals to survivors at He is Theia (also Teia, Thela, Thila)
Rome who witnessed the amazing on his coins, which have the head of
incident, w^e can hardly credit this Anastasius. Wroth, p. 95 sqq.

XIX

BATTLE OF MONS LACTARIUS

271

Narses sent the keys to the Emperor. Soon afterw’'ards
Portns surrendered. ;

The 'Goths now showed themselves, without any reserve, in
their true colours. (1) In Campania they put to; death, .the
senators; who, had been sent there by Totiia and 'now; proposed,
to return, to Eome. ..(2) Before Totiia 'went' forth ,to meet 'Parses
he had selected three hundred boys from Roman families of
repute and sent them to the north of Italy as hostages. Teias
seized them and slew them all. (3) It will be remembered that
Ragnaris, the commander in Tarentum, had agreed to surrender
on conditions w^hich Pacurius, the commander of Hydruntuni,
had gone in person to submit to the Emperor ; in the meantime
he had given hostages. Learning that Teias was resolved to
renew the struggle and counted on the help of the Franks,
Ragnaris changed his plans. When Pacurius returned from
Constantinople,^ he asked him to send a few Roman soldiers
to conduct him safely to Hydruntum and thence by sea to
Constantinople. Pacurius sent fifty men. Ragnaris iinjirisoned
them and then informed Pacurius that they would not be released
until the Gothic hostages had been restored. The Roman
commander lost no time in marching to Tarentum with all his
forces. At his approach Ragnaris put the fifty men to death
and marched out to meet him. The Goths were defeated and
Ragnaris fled to Acherontia. These circumstances of the
recovery of Tarentum deserved to be recorded as an illustration
of the character of the Ostrogoths.

jSTarses meanwhile had not been idle. He sent a force to
reduce Centumcellae, and another into Campania to lay siege
to Cumae. The importance of this fortress lay in the fact that
Totiia had deposited in it all the Gothic treasure that was not
stored at Ticinum, and left it in the custody of his brother
Aligern.^ When the news that this store was in immediate
danger reached Teias, who had been waiting in the vain hope
that the Franks would provide an army to help him, he deter-
mined to make an attempt to rescue Cumae. It was a long

^ The journey to Constantmople and of Teias. Procoxhus says he was the
back need not have taken much more brother of Totiia, B.G. iv. 34. 19.
than a month, as the business need Cnmae is about 200 kilometres from
have caused no delay. Borne, so that an army leaving Borne

just after the middle of July would

2 Agathias, i. 8, records the name, have arrived before the end of the
but says he was the youngest brother month.

272 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

marcli from Ticimim to Campania, and even a small army,
moving more rapidly than usual, could not accomplish it in
much less than a month. The shortest route was through
Etruria, and Narses sent a force under John to watch the Etrurian
roads. But Teias did not choose the shortest route. His object
was to avoid the enemy, and he went by devious and roundabout
ways, finally following the coast road of the Hadriatic. He
must have crossed the peninsula by Beneventum, where he
could proceed either by Capua or by Salerno to the neighbour-
hood of Naples.^

Narses, when he found that the enemy had eluded both John,
who was guarding the western roads, and Valerian, who had
captured Petra Pertusa^ and was thus master of the Via Flaminia,
recalled both these generals and proceeded with all his forces
to Campania. When Teias at last reached the southern foot-
hills of Vesuvius, near Huceria, he found a Roman army drawn
up on the bank of the Draco.

This river, now the Sarno, runs into the bay of Naples, north of
the Sorrento peninsula. The remnant of the Gothic fleet was
assembled in the bay of Naples. As Teias might expect that the
land approaches to Cumae, north of Naples, vrould be guarded,
his plan probably was to embark his troops near >Sorrento and
reach Cumae by sea. There was no fleet at hand to oppose
him, and the plan was only foiled by the vigilance and good
intelligence service of the Roman general, who was just in time
to prevent him from reaching the sea.

The armies remained for weeks ^ facing each other on either
bank of the narrow stream, which neither infantry nor cavalry
could ford on account of the steepness of the banks, the archers
carrying on a desultory battle. There was indeed a bridge on

1 Tho possible route of Texas is
discussed by Kerbs (op, cit, p. 82),
who calculates that be had about
814 kilometres to cover, that he
probably did at least 30 kilometres a
day, that he started soon after the
middle of July and reached Campania
after the midhe of August,

^ B.G, iv. 34, 24; but the Petra
Pertusa which is mentioned {ib, 16)
along with Nepi and Porto seems to
have been another place, also on the
Via Flaminia, but (^[uite close to Pome,

north of Prima Porta. See Tomas-
setti. La Oampagna Romana, iii. pp.
138,260-261.

® Two months, acc. to Procopius,
iv. 35. 11. This must be a consider-
able exaggeration if Agneilus is right
in his dating of the battle to Oct. 1
{in Kal, Octobris, c. 79). Teias could
not at the earliest have reached
Campania before the middle of
August ; it seems more likely that he
arrived at the end of the month. If
Procopius is accurate the date of
Agneilus is wrong.

XIX BATTLE OF MONS LACTARIUS 273

which the Goths who held it erected towers and assailed their
enemies with boltsiiom . Texas' sncceeded in getting into

touch with his fl.eet and it was able to supply him witli provisions.
The situation was changed nvhen Imperial warships which Nurses
summoned began to come in great numbers from Sicily and
other places. The Gothic naval commander; anticipating their
arrivalj surrendered his fleet. The food-supply of the army
was thus cut off, and at the same time it began to suffer from
the play of the engines which Narses installed in wooden towers
along his banlc of the stream. Teias broke up his camp and
retreated to the shelter of the mountain which overlooks the
valley. This mountain, belonging to the St. Angelo range,
was known as Mons Lactarius and still retains the name as Monte
Lettere. On the slopes of this hill the Goths were safe from
attack, which the nature of the ground wmuld ha\'e rendered too
dangerous an enterprise, but they found tlieniselves wmrse off
for food, and they soon repented their change of ground. At
length they resolved to make a surprise attack upon their foes.
It was their only chance.

They appeared so unexpectedly in the valley that the Eomans
had no time to form themselves in the regular array prescribed
by military handbooks.^ The Goths had left their horses behind
and advanced as a solid mass of infantry. The Romans received
them in the same formation.^ In the battle there was no room
for tactics, it wns a sheer trial of personal strength, bravery,
and skill. The Gothic king, a few warriors by his side, led the
assault, and, the Romans recognising him and thinking that if
he fell his followers who were formed in a very deep phalanx
would not continue the contest, he became the mark for their
most dexterous lancers and javelin-throwers. It was a Homeric
combat, and the historian has described it vividly. Teias stood
covered by his shield, which received the spears that were hurled
or thrust at him, and then suddenly attacking laid many of his
assailants low. When he saw that the shield was full of spears
he gave it to one of his squires, who handed him another. He is

^ According to local tradition the dismounted. Dclbruek {op. cU. 382)
scene of the battle was at Pozzo conjectures that the Romans had
dci Goti, a kilometre w^est of Angri constructed fortifications (earthworks
at the foot of Afonto Lettere. and ditch ?) to blockade the Goths,

“ Procopius does not explain W'hy and thus the Gotbs w'ere obliged to
the Goths should have advanced on attack on foot, and the Romans to
foot, or why the Romans should have defend the line on foot.

VOL. II 'T'

274 HISTOR Y OF THE LA TEE ROMAN EM FIRE chap.

said to have fought thus for a third part of the day, then his
strength failed. There were twelve spears sticking in his shield,
and he found he could not move it as easily as he would. Without
retreating a foot or moving to right or left, smiting his foes with
his right hand, he called the name of a squire. A new shield
was brought, but in the instant in which he was exchanging it
for the old his chest w^as exposed, and a lucky javelin wounded
him mortally.^

The head of the fallen hero was at once severed from Ms body
and raised aloft on a pole that all Ms host might know that he
had fallen. But the expectation of the Eomans that their
enemies would abandon the struggle was not fulfilled. The
Goths did not flee like fawns, nor lay down their arms. They
were animated by a spirit of desperation, and in a very different
temper from that which they had displayed in the last battle
of Totila. They fought on till nightfall, and on the next day
the fray was resumed, and again lasted till the evening. Then,
seeing that they could not win and recognising that God was
against them, they sent some of their leaders to Narses to announce
that they would yield, not, however, to live in subjection to the
Emperor, but to retire somewhere outside the Roman frontiers
where they could live independently. They asked to be allowed
to retire in peace, and to take with them any money or belong-
ings that they had individually deposited in Italian fortresses.

On the advice of John, who made a strong plea for modera-
tion, these conditions were accepted, on the undertaking of the
Goths that they would not again make war on the Empire.^

§ 12. The Frcmco-Alamcmnic Invasion (a.d. 553-654) :

Battle ofGapua

-The shields of Texas had not availed to avert the doom of his
people. He was their last king. The kingdom of the Ostro-
goths went down on the hard-fought field under Mount Lactarius.
But there was still fighting to be done. The great defeat did
not lead to the immediate surrender of the strongholds which

^ The whole account of the first na,rrative of Procojjius cannot be
part of the battle seems fanciful and accepted as a true account of the
improbable. The deep phalanx of the battle.

Goths plays no part in the action, and ^ The History of Procopius ends
Teias alone occupies the stage. His with the victory of Mens Lactarius,
heroism is assuredly a fact, but the and the story is taken up by Agathias.

XIX

FRANCO-ALAMANNIC INVASION

275

were still held by Gothic garrisons. ' There was Cumae, there
was. Centiimcellae, . there were a number of towns in Tuscany,
and there was North ■ Italy beyo.nd the Po. , Narses had still
much . strenuous ■ military work before him. He might have
hoped to complete the reduction of the land by the following
summer, but his plans were disconcerted by the appearance of a
new and more barbarous enemy upon the scene.

Teias had invoked the assistance of the Franks. The answer
of the young king Theodebald ^ to the pleadings of his envoys
was unfavourable. The Franks had no mind to embark on a
war for the sake of the Ostrogoths ; they coveted Italy for
themselves,^ but at the moment they judged neutrality to be
the best policy. But the neutrality was only official. Two
chieftains of their subjects the Alamanni, Leutharis and Buccelin,
who were brothers, formed the plan of invading Italy. Ostensibly
Theodebald did not approve of this act of aggression, but he took
no steps to prevent it.^ The two adventurers raised a host of
75,000, in which Franks as -well as Alamanni served, and descended
into Italy in the spring of a.d. 553, confident that they could
overwhelm Narses, for whose military talents, eunuch and
chamberlain as he was, they professed supreme contempt.*^

Narses spent the winter months in besieging Cuniae, but
Aligern and the little fortress held out obstinately. '\¥hen all
his assaults and devices failed, he left a small investing force,
and proceeded to Central Italy, where he found the Gothic
garrisons ready to make terms. Centumcellae surrendered, and
the Tuscan towns, Florence, Volaterrae, Pisa, and Luna did like-
wise. Lucca alone bargained for a delay ; if no help came to
them before thirty days expired, surrender was promised, and

^ Theodebald married Vuldetrada,
daughter of Wacho, king of the
Lombards. Her mother was Austri-
guna, a Gepid princess. Gregory of
Tours, Hist Fr, iv. 9.

2 Procopius, iv. 34. 18.

® Agathias says {i. 6) that the king
was opposed to the invasion. On the
other hand, the invaders sent him
a portion of the treasures which they
collected in Italy (Gregory of Tours,
E.F. iii. 32; Pauius Diac. II, Lang,
ii. 2). Agathias has much to tell us
about the Pranks. I conjecture that
he gathered his information from

the ambassadors of King Sigebeit,
who visited Constantinople in a.d.
506. It was their cue to represent
the invasion of Italy as not counte-
nanced by Theodebald. Eastia, in
which the Alamanni had been
settled by Theoderic, had been
abandoned by the Goths (Totiia ?),
and Theodebert had brought it
under Ms rule (Agathias ib.).

^ Agathias is the main source for
the invasioii, but we have also brief
accounts in western sources : Marius
of Aventicum, Ohmn., sub 555, 556;
Gregory of Tours, Hist Fr, iii. 32, iv,
9 ; Pauius Liao. Hist Lang. ii. 2.

276 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

hostages were given. The help which the Goths of Lucca
looked for was the arrival of the Franks, who had already crossed
the Alps. It was the imminence of their invasion that had
probably decided Narses to march northward, and he had sent
the greater part of Ms army under John and Valerian to guard
the passages of the Po.

The thirty days passed and the garrison of Lucca refused
to abide by their agreement. Some of his officers, in their
indignation at this breach of faith, suggested that the hostages
should be put to death. Narses was not a Goth ; he would not
commit the injustice of executing innocent men. But lie led
them forth, with their hands bound across their bodies and their
heads bowed, within sight of the walls, and proclaimed that they
would be slain if the town were not surrendered. Thin pieces
of wood, wrapped in pieces of cloth, had been fastened on the
backs of the hostages from the neck to the waist, and, when the
garrison gave no sign of yielding, guardsmen stepped forward
and drawing their swords brought them down on the well-
protected necks. The victims, who had been let into the secret,
fell forward, as if they had been decapitated, and their bodies
feigned the spasms and contortions of death. The spectators
on the wall set up howds and wails, for the hostages belonged
to the noblest families ; mothers and affianced brides rushed along
the battlements rending their garments. All cried shame on
the bloody cruelty of Narses.

Narses sent a herald to address them.^ You have yourselves
to blame,’' he said, for the shameless violation of your oaths.
But if you vill come to your senses even now it will be w^ell
for you ; these men will come to hfe again and you will suffer
no harm.” The Goths had no doubt that he was deceiving
them, but they readily swore that if he showed them the hostages
alive they would at once capitulate. Then at the general’s
command all the dead stood up together and showed them-
selves safe and sound to their friends, who were divided between
incredulity and joy. But incredulity prevailed, and then Narses,
with a magnanimity which was well calculated, set his prisoners
free, and allowed them, without imposing any conditions, to
return to their people in the town. They %vent back loud in his

^ TaOra airOiv eirLlSodipraiv ... is not mentioned but is clearly to be
^4>7} 6 Hapcrijs (Agathias, i. 43) ; a herald j^resumed.

XIX FRANCO-ALAMANNIC INVASION 277

praiseS; but Lucca did not surrender. Oaths and solemn engage-
ments were of no account in the eyes of the Goths, who weie
elated with new hopes by the successful advance of the Franl^s.

For Buccelin and his Alamanni had won possession of Parma,
and had cut to pieces a force of Heruls who, under a brave but
rash leader, attempted to recover it. All the Goths in the
Ligurian and Aemilian provinces had rallied to the invaders,
and it is probable that these were in command at Ticiniim itself.
John and Valerian, upon whom Narses relied to keep them back
from Etruria wdiile he was engaged in reducing Lucca, had with-
drawn to Faventia. Lucca, however, he w-as determined to
take, and he prosecuted the siege -with vigour. It wmuld have
surrendered soon if Frank oJB&cers had not succeeded in entering
the town and stiffening the defence. But at length the will of
the majority i)revailed, and the Luccans opened their gates
and received the army of Parses, who had agreed not to piimsh
them for their ill-faith.

The siege had lasted three months, and it was now the end
of autumn. Narses went to Ravenna to arrange the dispositions
of the troops for the winter, and presently Aligern, the Gothic
commander of Cumae, which had held out all this time, arrived
at Classis and gave him the keys of the town. Aligern had come
to the conclusion that the Franks had no intention of restoring
the Ostrogothic power, and that whether they succeeded or not
in conquering Italy, in neither event had he the least chance
of inheriting the throne of Texas. He therefore decided to resist
no longer but to become a subject of the Empire.

Narses spent the winter in Rome, and in the spring (a.d. 554)
his army, which had been dispersed among the forts and towns
in the Ravennate region for the winter, was collected and re-
united at Rome. We do not know his reasons for this retreat,
which meant the abandonment of Etruria and the Hadriatic
provinces to the enemy. He could rely with some confidence
on his garrisons in the great fortresses, but the open country and
unwalled towns were at the mercy of the invader.

The host of Buccelin and Leutharis moved south-ward,
without haste, plundering and d-estroying. When they ap-
proached Rome they divided into two separate armies, of
which the larger under Biiccelih, avoiding Rome itself, marched
through Campania, Lucania, and Bruttii to the Straits of

278 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Messina/ wHle Lentharis led tlie otlier throngli Apulia and
Calabria as far as Hydruntum. Tbe provinces were systematically
plundered, and an enormous booty was collected. In tbis work
of pillage and devastation there was a marked difference between
the conduct of the Franks and their Alamannic comrades. The
Franks; who were orthodox Christians, showed respect for
churches, but the heathen Alamanni were restrained by no
scruples from carrying off the ecclesiastical plate and pulhng
down the roofs of the sacred buildings.^

When he had reached the hmits of Calabria, Leutharis laden
with spoils decided to return home to enjoy them. He had no
political ambitions, and his one thought was to get safely away
mth his wealth and run no further risks. He marched along
the coast as far as Fanum, but there his troops suffered consider-
able losses through an attack by the Homan garrison of Pisaurum,
and the greater part of the booty was lost. Leaving the coast
he struck into the Apennines and reached the Po safe but dis-
pirited.^ At the Venetian town of Ceneta,^ where he took up
his quarters to rest, a virulent plague broke out in the army,
and Leutharis himself was one of its victims.

His brother Buccelin was more enterprising and ambitious.
He had professed to the Goths that his object was to restore
their kingdom, and many of them doubtless attached themselves
to his army in his southern march. He fell under the influence
of their flatteries ; they told him that they would proclaim
him king if he drove Narses out of Italy ; and he was finally
persuaded to risk everything in a battle with the army which
he had hitherto aimed at avoiding.

He returned to Campania and encamped on the banks of the
Vulturnus ^ close to Casihnum and Capua, which are only a few

^ Gregory (iii. 32) says that Buccelin
defeated Narses in a battle, and then
occupied Sicily. These statements
may be due to exaggerated rumours
derived from Buccelin’s report of his
successes. It is probable that when
he reached Ehegium, he despatched
a message to Theodebaid.

® Agathias (i. 7) describes the
nature worship of the Alamanni, their
cults of trees, rivers, and hills, but
thinks that it will soon disappear
through the influence of the Franks.

® OCrw re Wb AifiiXeias kolI 'AXirt-

cr/foTias iXdovres ; here Agathias (ii. 3)
betrays his ignorance of Italian geo-
graphy. He supposed that the district
of Alpes Cottiae was adjacent to
Venetia.

^ Pauius, he. ciL, says near lake
Garda, between Verona and Trent.
Ceneta, now’ Ceneda, lies between
Oderzo and Feltre.

® Agathias (ii. 4) calls it the
Casulinus. Pauius says the battle
was fought at a place called Tan-
netum {al. Cannetum).

XIX

BATTLE OF CAPUA

279

miles apart. Casilinum is the modern Capua, and the ancient
Capua is the modern village . of S. Maria di Capua Vetere. On
one side the river formed' the ■wall of his camp, on the other side
he fortified it .securely.^ , He had, some' hopes , that he would
soon be reinforced, for his. brother had promised that wlien he
had reached Venetia he would send back his troops. As soon
as hf arses learned that Buccelin had occupied this position at
Capua he marched from Rome with his army, numbering about
18,000, and encamped not far from the enemy. The battle
which ensued was probably fought across the Appian Way
which passed through Capua and crossed the river at Casilinum.

The course of the battle was afiected by an accident. One
of the Herul captains killed his servant for some delinquency,
and when Narses called him to account asserted that masters
had the power of life and death over their slaves and that he
would do the same thing again. He was put to death by the
command of Narses, to the great indignation of the Heruls,
who withdrew from the camp and said they would not fight.
Harses drew up his line of battle without them. He placed his
cavalry on the two wings and all the infantry in the centre.
There was a wood on the left, and Valerian and Artabanes,
who commanded on that side, were directed to keep a part of
their forces concealed in the wood till the enemy attacked.
Narses himself commanded on the right. The leader of the
Heruls, Sindual, who was burning to fight, implored Narses to
wait until he could persuade his followers to return to the battle-
field ; Narses declined, but agreed to reserve a place for them,
where they could fall in, if they arrived late. Accordingly he
left an open space in the middle of the infantry.

Meanwhile two Heruls had deserted to the enemy, and
persuaded Buccelin that his chance was to attack at once, as
the Romans were in consternation at the defection of the Herul
troops. Buccelin had drawn up his army, which consisted
entirely of infantry, in the shape of a deep column, which should
penetrate like a wedge through the hostile lines.^ In this array

^ Agatiiias says tliat his army ^ Agathias (ii. 8) describes the
amoiiiited to about 30,000, and that formation as a triangular (SeXToircJ)
the numbers were considerably wedge, with the point towards the
reduced by dyseiiteiy, attributed to enemy, and compares it to the “head
the immoderate use of ripe grapes. of a boar.” It was simply the cune us
The figure of 30,000 is probably described by Vegetiiis (hi. 19):
too high. cmieus dicitur muliitudo ;peditumt

280 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

tbe Franks advanced, armed with missile lances, swords, and
axes,^ confident that they would sweep all before them at the
first rush. They penetrated into the central space which was to
have been occupied by the Heruls, dislodging the outer ranks
of the Eoman infantry on either side. Narses quietly issued
orders to his wings to face about, and the enemy were caught
between the cross fire of the cavalry, who were all armed with
bows. The Franks were now facing both ways. The archers
on the right wing aimed at the backs of those who were fighting
with the infantry on the left, the archers on the left wing at
the backs of those who were engaged with the right. The
barbarians did not understand what was happening. They
saw the foeinen just in front of them with whom they were
fighting hand to hand, but they could not see the enemies who
from far behind were raining arrows upon their backs. Their
ranks were gradually mown down, and then Sindual and his
Heruls appeared upon the scene. The defeat of the Franks was
already certain ; it 'was now to be annihilation. Buccelin was
slain and only a handful escaped alive from the stricken field.
The Roman losses were small.^ It will be noticed that Narses
won this, his third victory, by a tactical plan similar to that
which he had employed in the battle with Totila.

The Italians had been terror-stricken by the ruthless deeds
of the northern barbarians, and they w^ere wild with joy at the
news of their utter destruction. Narses and thoughtful people
had little hope that the brilliant victory of Capua had dispeled
the danger. They reflected that the foes w'hose corpses were
strewn on the banks or floated in the w^aters of the Vulturnus
were such a small fraction of the Frank people and their de-
pendents, that their fate would provoke rather than intimidate.
They expected that a greater host would soon come down to

quae luncta cum acie primo angustior ^ See Agatliias ii. 5 for Frank
deinde latior procedit et aduersarionim armour (cp. Sidonius, Epp. iv. 20).
ordines rimpity quia a plurihus in unum The axe was called frmxcisca^ the lance
locicm tela rnitiuniur. Qtiam rem milites for hurling angon. The Franks gener-
noyrmiant caput porcinum. There ally fought naked to the wmst, with
must have been the same number of leather trousers, wdtiiout breastplate
men in each rank of the column, but or gieaves, and bareheaded, though
in advanciug the men of the front a few had helmets,
ranks drew closer together, and the ^ Agathias says only five Franlcs
columns became a trapezium instead escaped, and that only eighty Romans
of a rectangle, with the smallest side were killed ; Marius that* Buccelin
towards the foe. cum omni exercilu suo interilL

XIX

BATTLE OF CAPUA

281

avenge the fallen and restore German prestiged- These fears
were not realised, as they might well have been if Theodebert had
been still alive ; his feeble son Theodebald, who suffered from
a congenital disease, died in the following year. Raises was
able to complete in peace the settlement of Italy.

The winter months which followed the battle of Capua were
spent in besieging Campsa, a strong place in the Apennines,
where, seven ' thousand, Goths had establishe,d themselves under
the leadership of ' ,Eagnaris, ' the man , who had behaved so
treacherously at Tarentum.^ ■ Campsa has been id,entified with
Conza, about fifty,' miles east of Naples. Its' position defied
assault and Narses sat down to' blockade it, but a large stock
of provisions had been laid 'm. At the beginning of spring
(a.d. 555), Eagnaris proposed to .Narses that , they should meet
and discuss terms.. ; They met between.'the .fortress: and the
camp, and Eagnaris adopted a high tone towards the Eoman
general. Narses refused to agree to his proposals, and he retired
in great wrath. When he was near the wall of the fort he
turned round, drew his bow, and aimed an arrow at the general
who was returning to his lines. It missed its mark, but one of
the guardsmen who were with Narses had a surer aim, and
transfixed the treacherous Goth. He fell dead, and the garrison
surrendered immediately and were sent to Constantinople.

All Italy south of the Po was now restored to the Imperial
authority. Of the subjugation of the Transpadane provinces,
where Goths and Franks were still in possession, we have no
record. It was a slow business, and Verona and Brixia were
not recovered till a.d. 662. In November of that year Narses
sent the keys of their gates to Justinian.^

§ 13. The Settlement of Italy

In the meantime Narses had been engaged in establishing
an ordered administration in Italy, and restoring the life of the

^ See the s[3eech of Narses to his perhaps connect the defeat of the
arttxy in Agatlxias, ii. 12. Frank Aming and the Goth Widin,

^ There can hardly be any doubt of whom we hear in Paui Diac. {l.c.)
as to the identity. Menander {IJe leg. Earn.., fr. 2, p.

^ John Mai. xviii. p. 4:92=Theo- 171). Aming opposed a Roman army

phanes, a.m. 6055. With the re- which \¥as about to cross the Adige.
CO very of Verona and the end of Narses sent envoys warning him
the warfare in Venetia w^e may to depart, as a truce had been con-

282 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

provinces and their cities which had sufiered so much through
the long war. Though officially he held a military post, he
acted as viceroy, and was evidently supreme over the civil
functionaries as well as over the army. He had at his side a
Prefect, Antiochus, at the head of the civil service, but it is
significant that the title of Antiochus was not Praetorian Prefect,
but simply Prefect of Italy.

The general lines for the reorganisation were laid down by
the Emperor in a law which he addressed to Narses and Antiochus
in August A.D. 554, and which he described as a Pragmatic
Sanction.^ It was supremely important for the Italians to
know immediately how far the Imperial Government would
recognise the acts of the Gothic rulers, particularly in regard to
property. This law provides that henceforward the enactments
of the Imperial Code shall apply to Italy as well as to the other
parts of the Empire. All grants that were made to individuals
or corporations by Athalaric, Amalasuntha, and Theodahad
shall be valid, but all grants made by the tyrant Totila are
annulled. All contracts made between Eomans in besieged
towns during the war shall remain vahd.^ In many cases during
the war and the Frank invasion people had been forced to flee
from their homes and their property had been occupied by others ;
it is enacted that their property must be restored to them.
The old regulations allocating funds for the repair of public
buildings in Eome, for dredging the bed of the Tiber, for the
repair of the aqueducts are confirmed, and doles of food are to
be supplied to the Eoman populace as of old. A remarkable
innovation is made in regard to provincial governors. They are
no longer to be appointed from above, but to be elected for each
province from among its residents by the bishops and magnates.
This change may have had some arguments in its favour, but

eluded between the Empire and the served, and will he found in editions
Franks. Aming replied that he of the Novellae {e,g. App. 'tdi. in
would not retreat so long as his hand Kroll’s ed.). Another law, relating
could wield a javelin. He had come to debts incurred before the Frank
to the assistance of a Goth named invasion, and the rights of creditors,
Widin (possibly the commander in is incompletely preserved (App. viii.).
Verona). A battle ensued ; Aming For the title and powers of the Prefect
•was _ slain by the sword of Narses, of Italy see Diehl, Miides silt V ad m,,
Widin made prisoner and sent to hyz. 157 seq.

Constantinople. ^ § 7 quod enim riki perfect wm est,

per fortuitos belli cassis suhverti
I- Considerable extracts are pre- subiilitatis non patitur ratio.

XIX THE IMPERIAL SETTLEMENT OF ITALY 283

it was evidently conceived in the interests of the large landed
proprietors and must have increased their local power. In
other regulations we see the desire to relieve the burden of taxa-
tion so far as was deemed compatible, with Imperial needs.

The boundaries of the j)rovmcesd and the general system of
the civil service remained as they had been before the war.
It is to be observed, however, that Sicily was not included in
Italy. It remained under its own Praetor, who was independent
of the Imperial authorities at Ravenna, and from whose courts
the appeal was to the Quaestor of the Sacred Palace at Con-
stantinople.® Sardinia and Corsica "were under the viceroy of
Africa.

Narses administered Italy for thirteen years after the defeat
of the Prank invaders, presiding over the work of reconstruction.*^
The walls and gates of Rome were restored, and one of the few
memorials of the time records the rebuilding of a bridge across
the Anio, which had been destroyed by the Goths, about two
miles from the city on the Via Salaria.^*^ Perhapjs the most
troublesome concern with which the Patrician was called upon
to deal was the danger of ecclesiastical strife arising out of the
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in a.d. 553. The circum-
stances of that assembly will be described in another chapter.
The Pope Vigilius who had been forced against his will to
subscribe to its decisions died on his way back to Rome on
January 7, a.d. 555, and his archdeacon Pelagius was, at the in-
stance of the Emperor, consecrated as his successor on April 13.
Pelagius was unpopular in Italy ; he was suspected of having
in some way caused the death of Vigilius, and only two Italian
bishops could be found willing to consecrate him. PTarses was
present at the ceremony at St. Peter’s, and Pelagius took the
Gospels in his hand and swore that he was innocent,® His oath

^ A new province, AVpes CoUimy in 565 and records how Narses'

seems to have been cut off imm expraeposito scicH palatii^ excons,

Liguria; Diehl, op. p. 3. atqm patricms after his Gothic

^ As to the meagre evidence for victory, ixms eonmi regibits celeritate

the ItoKue (residing at Blilan) mirabiU conflictu publico superaUs

and the vicar ius urbis Eomae see atque prostratis^ Uberiate urbis Romae
Diehi, op. cit. p. 161. ac totim Italiae restiluta restored the

3 Cp. above, p. 216 ; Diehl, p. 169. bridge a nefandissimo Totila tyranno
^ His usual title was simply destructum. It concludes with eight

(see next note ; Pelagius, Ep. 2, P.L, verses of which the last two are
ixix. 393 patricms ed dux m Italia). qui potuitrigidasGothommsubderementes,

5 It was destroyed in 1798. The
inscription (G.I.L. vi. 1199) is dated ® See his life in Lib. Pont.

284 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

calmed tlie pojmlar feeling, but, if be bad had his way, he would
soon have created a dangerous schism in the Italian Church. In
northern Italy particularly, the opinion of the bishops was
against the decisions of the recent Council, while the new Pope
was determined to enforce them and expel from their sees those
who refused to accept them. He wrote repeatedly to Narses
requesting or rather requiring of him to use the secular arm
against the contumacious bishops.^; Narses wisely declined to
do anything, and the Imperial government, in the interests of
peace, adopted throughout the Empire the policy of suspending
the anathemas of the Council and allowing time to heal the
discord which the controversy had caused. This unusual
moderation, which Ave may probably attribute to the advice
of Narses, was successful. If the matter had rested with the
Pope, the Church in Italy would have been rent in twain at a
moment when concord and peace were imperatively needed.

The secluded city of the marshes continued to be the seat of
government in Italy under Justinian and his successors until
it was lost to the Empire in the eighth century. The Emj)ress
Placidia had lavished money in making it a treasure-house of
art ; the barbarian king Theoderic had lived up to her example ;
and after its recovery by their armies, Justinian and Theodora,
who knew it only by reputation, were eager to associate their
names with the artistic monuments of Raveima.

The octagonal church of St. Yitalis, close to Placidia’s
mausoleum, had been designed and begun under the regency
of Amalasuntha, and the building was continued during the
war, perhaps by the Ostrogoths themselves. But it wms com-
pleted and decorated under the auspices of Justinian and
Theodora, who made it peculiarly their own, — a monument of
the Imperial restoration. It was consecrated by the archbishop
Maximian in a.d. 647, the year before the death of the Empress,
and in the mosaic decoration of the apse the most striking
pictures are those of the two sovrans facing each other offering
their gifts to the church. But it was not only by their portraits
that they appropriated St. Vitalis. Justinian gave it his own
impress in the scheme of the Scriptural scenes which are portrayed.
They are not simply, as in the other Ravennate churches, intended
to illustrate sacred history. The motive is theological, they are
1 Pelagius, Epp. ii. 4(P.(?. ixix. pp. 392, 397).

XIX

THE IMPERIAL SETTLEMENT OF ITALY

285

designed to incnlcate doctrine, probably the orthodox view on
the question which was agitating the world, the two natures of
Christ.^ The effects are fine, but these mosaics are far from
possessing the charm of those which adorn the sepulchral church
of Placidia. .

Another church which , had been begun by' the Goths during
the war and was left to their conquerors to coniplete was dedicated
two years later (a.d.'549) to St. Apollinaris, not in the city
itself but in the port of Classis. But many of the mosaics., of
this , basilica, , which still stands in the marshes, were executed
at a later period ; among them is the portrait of an Emperor
who ascended the throne a hundred years after Justinian’s
death.^

The decorations of Theoderic’s basilica of St. Martin were
completed under Justinian, and a mosaic representation of the
Emperor’s bust was put up on the facade, ^ but was afterwards
transferred to a chapel in the interior where it may still be seen.
In his time the church was still St. Martin’s ; it was not till
the ninth century that it received the remains of Apollinaris,
the tutelary saint of Ravenna, and was re-dedicated to his
name.'^

The island city, which was later to become the queen of the
Hadriatic, had not yet been founded. But it is probable that
long before the reign of Justinian inhabitants of the Venetian
mainland had been settling in the islands of the lagoons, Mala-
mocco and Rialto, as a secure retreat where they could escape
such dangers as the invasions of Alaric and Attila, Under
Gothic rule we find the people of this coast in possession of
numerous ships, and they were employed to transport wdne and
oil from Istria to Ravenna. The minister Cassiodoriis, in a
picturesque despatch, calling upon them to perform this office,
likens them to sea-birds.^ But though danger from Visigoth
and Hun may have prepared the way for the rise of a city in
the lagoons, it was not till three years after Justinian’s death,
when the Lombards descended into the land, that any such

1 See Dalton, Bijz. Art. 357-360.

2 Constantine IV.

® Duruw tlio last years of the reign
(553-566).

^ Another church of the Justinian-

ean period was St. Michael’s (in
Aifricisco), A.n. 545. Its mosaics
were sold to the king of Prussia in
1847 and are x>roserved in the Berlin
Museum.

5 VariaCj xii. 24.

286 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

large and permanent settlements were made on the islands that
they could properly he described as the foundation of Venice ^

§14, Conquests in Southern 8])ain

It is impossible to say whether Justinian in the early years of
his reign had formed any definite plan for reconquering Spain,
but we may be sure that it was one of his ambitions, and that
if the fall of Witigis had led immediately to the recovery of
Italy, he would have sought a pretext for carrying his victorious
arms against the Visigoths. But before he had completed the
subjugation of the Ostrogoths he was invited to intervene in
Spain, and, although the issue of the Italian war was still far
from certain, he did not hesitate to take advantage of the
occasion.

Theoderic, who was regent of the Visigothic kingdom during
the minority of his grandson Amalaric, had entrusted the conduct
of affairs to Theudis, a capable general, and after the death of
Theoderic and the end of the regency Theudis continued to be
the virtual ruler. The young king, who had none of the qualities
of either his father or his grandfather, married a Frank princess,
and this mixed marriage proved unfortunate. Amalaric behaved
so brutally to her because she refused to embrace his Arian
faith that she invoked the aid of her brother king Childebert,
and he advanced against Narbonne. Amalaric marched to
defend his Gallic possessions, was defeated in battle, and was
then slain in a mutiny of his own army (a.d. 531).^ The throne
was seized by Theudis, who reigned for seventeen years, and after
a short intervening reign^ was succeeded by Agila (a.b. 549).
But Agila was not universally acceptable to the people ; civil
war broke out, and after a struggle of five years he was over-
thrown by his opponent Athanagild, who ascended the throne
(a.d. 554).

In this struggle Athanagild sought the support of the Emperor,
and the Emperor sent a fleet to the southern coasts of Spain.
The commander of this expedition was the octogenarian patrician

^ )See Kretschmayr, Ge^scliichte von it definitely the residence of the
Venedig, p. 19. The foundation of Patriarch of Aqiiileia.

Grado was older, but it was the ^ Ghron. Gaesarmn (in Chroji. min,

Lombard invasion that transformed ii. p. 223).

it into an important city and made ® Thiudigisaius, 54S--549.

XIX

CONQUESTS IN SOUTHERN SPAIN

287

Liberius, who, it will be remembered, had set out to defend
Sicily against Totila, and bad hardly reached the island before
a more experienced general was sent to take his place,^ As
he appears not to have returned to Constantinople till late in
A.D. 551, it is probable that he received commands to sail directly
to Spain with the troops who had accompanied him to Sicily,
in A.D. 550, for the date of his expedition cannot have been
later than in this year. As the armament must have been small,
it achieved a remarkable success. Many maritime cities and
forts were captured.^ They were captured professedly in the
interests of Athanagild, but when Athanagild’s cause had
trimnphed, the Imperialists refused to hand them over and the
Visigoths were unable to expel them. Athanagild recovered
a few places,^ but Liberius had established an Imperial province
in Baetica which was to remain under the rule of Constantinople
for about seventy years. There can be no doubt that this
change of government was welcomed by the Spanish-Roman
population.

We have very few details as to the extent of this Spanish
province. It comprised districts and towns to the west as well
as to the east of the Straits of Gades ; it included the cities of
New Carthage, Corduba, and Assidonia ; ^ we do not know
whether at any time it included Hispalis. It was placed under
a military governor who had the rank of Master of Soldiers, but
we do not know whether he was independent or subordinate to
the governor of Africa.^

It is curious that the two well-informed historical writers
who have narrated the fortunes of Justinian’s armies in Italy
in these years, Procopius and AgatMas, should not have made
even an incidental reference to this far- western extension of
Roman rule. But Agathias was a poet as well as a historian,

^ See above, p. 255. He died ill Balm {Kon. der Germ. v. p. 178)
Italy (later than 554) ; and was defines two groups of to wars, (1) eastern
buried at Ariminiim xi. 382). on the Mediterranean, from Colopona

2 Jordanes, Get. c. 58. As he was to Sucruna, and (2) w^estern, including
writing in 551, we cannot place the Lacobriga and Ossonoba. See also
expedition later than in 550. Isidore, Altamira, in C. Med. H. ii. p. 164.
Chron. 399 ; Hist. Goth. 286. For ^ An inscription of New Carthage,
the return of Liberius to Constan- of a.d. 589, records that Comcntiolus,
tinople see Procopius, iv. 24. 1. sent by the Emperor Maurice to

® Isidore, ib. ; Greg. Tur. H. Fr. defend the province, bore the title of
iv. 8. Athanagild reigned 554 to 507. mdgister militum Spaniae {O.I.L, ii.

^ John Biciar. Chron., sub ^70. 3420).

288 HISTORY OF THE RATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

and in verses whidi describe kow Justinian lias girdled tke world
witli Ms empire, ke alludes to the conquest of which in his History
he was silent. Let the Roman traveller, he says, follow the
steps of Hercules over the blue western sea and rest on the sands
of Spain, he will still be within the borders of the wise Emperor’s
sovrantyJ

APPENDIX

OK THE BATTLE OF BUSTA GALLORUM

The route taken by Narses after he crossed the river at Ariminum
is not precisely indicated by Procopius. His words are {B.G. Sy.
28 . 13 ) : 63ov tt }? h'devSe a<j>ipLevo <5 ev apLcrrspci yei.

The sentence seems to have been misunderstood by Hodgkin,
who contended that Narses marched along the coast to a point
south of Panuni and north of Sena Gallica, and then turned inland
by a road ascending the valley of the Sena (Cesano), and reaching
the Via Plaminia at Ad Calem (Cagli). Such a road is noticed in
the Itinerarium Antonini? But if he had taken this route Narses
would have had the Via Flaminia on his right, whereas Procopius
plainly says exactly the opposite : ‘‘He marched having left the
Flaminian Way on his left from this point.” ^ In order to have the
Flaminian Way on his left he must have turned inland between
Ariminum and Fanum.

The word iv^a^Se “ from this point,” shows that Procopius
supposed that Narses diverged from the coast road close to Ari-
niinum. If this statement is correct, it might imply (1) that Narses
passed San Marino, followed a road now well defined to Pieve di
S. Stefano, crossed the watershed of the Apennines, reached the town
now called Cdtta di Gastello : ^ from which point he could proceed

^ In tho introduction to the
Anthology which he edited (AntK Gr.
iv. 3. 82 sqq,)> The passage ends with:

ovSfi yap ae SeSe'lerat yj&ea yai^s,

aXXo. cron^ov Kredvoiciv biJiLKrjcrei<; /Sao'tA.'go?,
€vda Kev at'l^etas, ejret /cu/cAoitraTO KotrjXKyv

KOipaVL-T],

In 1. 82 KvcLvwirhv tfwkp means

the waters of the west Mediterranean,
There may be an allusion to the
Spanish conquest in the poem of
Paul the Silentiary on St. Sophia,
V, 228 :

T^pep-eei /cat dva^ koI KeArW bfiOKkq,

Cp. vv, 11-13.

2 As to this road Nissen observes
{Ital. Landeshunde, ii. 1. 392 n .) : *'Das

It. Ant. 315 erwahnt eine Strasse von
Helvillum fiber ad Calem und ad
Pimm nach Sena und Ancona ;
jedoch ist dieselbe nicht nachgewiesen
und die Entfemungen ganz eiitsteilt.”
But see on the other hand Cuntz, in
Jahrenh. Oaterr. arch. Inst. vii. Gl.
Muratori (Annali d' lialia, iii p. 433)
says : “ voltd K'arsete a man destra
per valicar V Apennino,” but does not
specify at what point he turned.

® The phrase is illustrated infra,
34, 23 Tern? oBohs jneu iv Be^iq rhs
eVtro/Atordras iirl rb TcXeicFrov d^ets.

^ Situated on the upper waters of
the Tiber, and identified with Tifer-
num Tiberinum.

XIX

APPENDIX ON BUSTA GALLORUM

289

either (a) to Urbaniaj and thence to Acqnalagna, or (&) to Iguvium
(Gubbio), and thence to Aesis (Scheggia). But (2) it is not
improbable that there was a direct road from Ariminuni to
Urbinuin (by Coriano, Montefiore, Tavoleto, Scliieti), and thence to
Acqualagna, by Fermigiano. ; The .engineer, P Montecchinij found
traces of it north of Fermigiano {La Strada Flaminia daW A-pennino
alV AdriaMcOy pp. 38 5^^., 1879, published at Pesaro).

The other alternative which was open to Narses was to proceed
along the coast road as far as Pisauruiii, and there to take the
road to Urbinuin, and it may be said that we cannot pass
so strictly as to exclude this possibility from our consideration ; if
the informant of Procopius omitted to mention Pisaurum, the
historian might easily have received a wrong impression.

It is safer to accept the statement of Procopius as it stands, but
tlie 'question is not important for the subsequent course of events.
By one of three routes the ar my could reach the Via Flam in ia at
Acqualagna, about five miles on the Bonian side of Petra Pertusa.
In any case Gibbon saw the truth as to the general direction taken
by Narses : he ‘‘ traversed in a direct line the hills of Urbino and
re-entered the Fiaminian Way nine miles beyond the perforated
rock.’’

The situation of the camp of Marses is named by Procopius —
Busta Gallorum ; the difficulty is to identify it. The district here
east of the Fiaminian Way lay in the ager Sentinas^ the limits of
which are unknown ; Sentinum. itself was close to Sassoferrato.
Somewhere in this district the consuls Fabius and Uecius defeated
the Gauls (in the ager SentinaspLiYj, x, 27) in b.o. 295, and the
name — Sepulchres of the Gauls — ^evidently comnieniorated that
defeat, like the Busta Gallica at Borne which commemorated their
repulse from the city nearly a century before (Livy, v. 42),

Cluverius in Italia antiquai lih. ii. c. vi., identified Busta
Gallorum with a small ‘ttown ” in the Apennines called Bosta or
Basta :

Extat hodie in Apennino inter Sentinum, Fabrianum, Matiiicam et
Sigillum oppida . , . oppidum vulgar! vocabulo Bosta: quod plerique
notiore vulgaris linguae vocabulo, quod Latine valet sufficit, sen satis est,
adpellant Basta.

Mo town or village of the name seems to exist now ; but Cluver
doubtless meant the castle called Bastia, a few miles west of
Fabriano, close to the railway connecting that town ^Yith Sasso-
ferrato (it will he found marked on maps of the Italian Touring
Club). If so, his description of its situation is incorrect, as it does
not lie between Matelica and any of the other three towns.

Cohicci in his Antichitd Picene^ vol. vii. pp. 42-106, has dis-
cussed at great length the two questions where the Bomans defeated

290 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the Gauls and where E'arses defeated Totiia. He identifies Bastia
with Cluver’s Basta and with Busta Galiorum, and comes to the
conclusion that the battle of ISTarses was fought in the plain south
of Sassoferrato (Piano della Croce) and the battle of Fabius
and Decius further south nella gran pianura in cui ora esiste
Fabriano.:’’ ,

A very difierent view from these was developed by Hodgkin,-^
who, having brought Narses from Sena to Cagli, makes him advance
along the Via Flaminia and encamp at Scheggia, “ or at some point
south of that place where the valley is somewhat broader.” ^ As
Totiia encamped at Tadinae, the distance between the two camps
would be about 15 miles. Procopius says that the distance
was 100 stadia, which is about 14 Eo:inan miles. The battle
was fought, according to Hodgkin, somewhere south of Scheggia
and north of Tadino. He thinks it “safe to disregard the Busta
Galloriim of Procopius altogether.”

The only other theory he considers is that the battlefield was
near Sassoferrato, and he rules this out on the ground that Totiia
could not have marched thither “ consistently with the narrative
of Procopius. The best of the roads between Tadino and Sasso-
ferrato is a high mountain pass, somewhat resembling the Pass
of Glencoe. The rest are little more than mountain paths carried
through deep gorges in which no armies could manoeuvre.”

There are three objections to Hodgkin’s reconstruction of the
event. (1) The ground along the Via Flaminia between Tadinae
and Aesis is unsuitable for such a battle as Procopius describes.
(2) It is very difiicult to believe that, if this had been the scene,
Aesis or Helvillum, or the Via Flaminia itself, would not have
been mentioned to Procopius by his informants, who knew the place
where Totiia encamped and the village to which his body was
carried. (3) No account is taken of the name Busta Gallorum.

The data seem to me to point to the conclusion that the battle
was fought somewhere between the Via Flaminia and the river
Aesis (Esino), and probably in the neighbourhood of Fabriano.
Narses, having reached Acqualagna, marched southward along the
Via Flaminia as far as Cagli, and there diverging to the east pro-
ceeded by a road, passing (the village of) Frontone and Sassoferrato,
to the valley of the Bono (a stream which joins the Esino some

^ Italy anil Her Invaders^ iv. TIG-
RIS, and 726-728 ; and a special
memoir (1884) referred to p. 726.

2 We have several lists of the
stations on the Via Flaminia : Itin.
A7it 125, 310 ; Itin. Hier. 613 ; Tab.
Pent ; and G.I.L. xi. 3281 - 3284.
They are set out together for the
section we are concerned within O.I.L,
xi p. 995. The distances are :

Ad Calem to Aesis (Scheggia)

Aesis to Helvillum (Sigiilo) . . G miles.
Helvillum to Tadinae .... 7 miles.

Tadinae is IJ mile from Gualdo
Tadino, near the church of S. Maria
Tadinae (Mssen, op. cit. 392). Above
Tadinae comes in from the %vest the
road from Iguvium, from the east a
road from the valley of the Aesis
(Esino).

XIX

APPENDIX ON BUSTA GALLORIJM

291

miles east ol Fabriano). He expected that Totila would march
along the Yia FI aminia— probably news of the moveiuents of the
Goths readied him at Cagli — and he decided to choose his owni
battleground.

In order to reach the camping place of Narses, Totila (if liis
camp was actually at the station of Tadinae) would only liave to
luarch a few miles northward along the Yia Flaminia to the place
which is now Fossa to and there diverge to his right and cross
tlie Colie di Fossato, by the same route which leads to-day from
Fossato to Fabriano. Assuming that Karses was encamped \yest of
Fabriano, Totila in descending the mountain pass could have turned
to the left (a road is marked on modern maps) and reached Melano,
which is about halfway between Fabriano and Bastia.

There seems, however, to be a considerable probability in the
conjecture that the camp of Totila was not actually a,.t the station
of Tadinae, but some kilometres to the north of it, at Fossato, ‘‘ the
Camp ” ; for if the Gothic camp was pitched here on tlie occasion
of the memorable battle, the origin of the piace-name Fossatum
is accounted for. As there was no Roman station here, the locality
would naturally be associated by the informants of Procopius with
the name of one of the nearest stations, either Tadinae or Helvillum.

Procopius gives two indications of distance. He says that (1)
the distance between the camps, that is between Tadinae and
Busta Gallorum, was 100 stades, somewhat more than M
Roman miles, and that (2) the distance from the place w^here
Totila was wounded to the village of Caprae was 81 stades, i,e.
12 Roman miles. Caprae has been identified, no doubt rightly,
with the little village of Caprara wMch lies to the west of the Yia
Flaminia, about six kilometres to the south-west of Fossato.^ But
as we do not know how far Totila had fled from the battlefield
before he was wounded, this second indication does not lielj^ us
muclL The first indication, however, is closely in accordance wdth
my theory if the camp of Totila was at Fossato. For the distance
from Fossato, by Meiano, to the neighbourhood of Bastia is about
20 kilometres, \yhich is equivalent to about M Roman miles, the
distance given by Procopius.

I must acknowledge help which I have received from my
friend Mr. E. H. Freshfield in investigating this subject. I have
had the advantage of seeing in MS. a study (soon to be published)
of the Yia Flaminia by Mr. Ashby and Mr. Fell, and they introduced
me to the book of Montecchini.

^ According to Nissen (op, cit. p, dstlicheii Seite der Einsenkmig liber
393) the Via Flaminia ran far to Fossato und Giialdo sondeni an der
the west of the present road : “ Die entgegengesetzten Seite an Caprara
Strasse lief nicht wie jetzt an der vorbei,”

CHAPTER XX

DIPLOMACY AND COMMERCE

Justinian was not less energetic in increasing the prestige and
strengthening the power of the Empire by his diplomacy than
by his arms. While his generals went forth to recover lost
provinces, he and his agents were incessantly engaged in maintain-
ing the Roman sjjheres of influence beyond the frontiers and
drawing new peoples within the circle of Imperial client states.
The methods were traditional and are familiar, but he pursued
and developed them more systematically than any of his pre-
decessors. Youths of the dynasties ruling in semi-dependent
countries were educated at Constantinople, and sometimes
married Roman wives. Barbarian kinglets constantly visited
the capital, and Justinian spared no expense in impressing them
with the majesty and splendour of the Imperial court. He
gave them titles of Roman rank, often with salaries attached ;
above all, if they were heathen, he procured their conversion
to Christianity. Baptism was virtually equivalent to an acknow-
ledgment of Roman overlordship. He used both merchants
and missionaries for the purposes of peaceful penetration. And
he understood and applied the art of vstirring up one barbarian
people against another.^ Perhaps no Emperor practised all these
methods, which are conveniently comprehended under the name of
diplomacy, on such a grand scale as Justinian, who was the last
to aspire to the Imperial ideal expressed by the Augustan poet :

ilia iiiclyta Roma

iniperiam terris, animos aeqaabit Olympo.

The objects aimed at varied in different quarters. On

^ He is praised for his dexterity in this art in the contemporary anonymous
treatise IHpt drparTfjiKypj ii, 4, p. §8.

CHAP. XX

THE SLA VS

293

some frontiers they were mainly political, on others largely
commercial. In the north, the problem was to secure the
European provinces against invasion by managing the rapacious
barbarians who lived within striking distance. In the Caucasian
regions, the chief concern was to contend against the influence
of Persia. In the neighbourhood of the Keel Sea commercial
aims were predominant. In a general survey of these multi-
farious activities it will be convenient to notice the hostile
invasions which afflicted the Balkan provinces during this reign
and the system of fortifications which was constructed to
protect them, and to describe the general conditions of com-
merce. We have already seen examples of the Emperor’s
diplomatic methods in his dealings with the Moors and with
the Franks.^, ^

§ 1. The Slavs

The array of barbarous peoples against whom Justinian had
to protect his European subjects by diplomacy or arms, from
the Middle Danube to the Don, were of three different races.
There were Germans and Huns as before, but a third group, the
Slavs, were now coming upon the scene. The German group
consisted of three East German peoples, the Gepids of Tran-
sylvania, and the Heriils and the Langobardi to the north-west
of the Gepids. The Huns were represented by the Bulgarians
of Bessarabia and Walachia, and the Kotrigiirs further east.
The Slavs lived in the neighbourhood of the Bulgarians on the
banks of the lower Danube in Walachia.

Tliis general disposition of peoples had resulted from the
great battle of the Netad which dissolved the empire of Attila.
One of the obscure but most important consequences of that
event was the westward and southward expansion of the Slavs
towards the Elbe and towards the Danube.

It has been made probable by recent research that the pre-
historic home of the Slavs was in the marshlands of the river
Pripet, which flows into the Dnieper north of Kiev.^ This un-
healthy district, known as Polesia, hardly half as large as England,

^ There is a ceniprehensive survey ^ This theory is based on^ a com-
of “ the diplomatic work ” of Justin- biuation of botanical and linguistic
ian in BiehFs monogra])h, p. 367 sqq. evidence. It was originated (1908)
Commerce is treated separately (533 by Rostafinski and has been developed
sqq.). by Peisker. The >Slavs have no

294 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

is now inhabited by White Eussians. It could produce little
corn as it could only be Cultivated in spots, and it was so entirely
unsuitable for cattle that the Slavs had no native words for
cattle or milh. They may have reared swine, but perhaps their
food chiefly consisted of fish and the manna-grass which grows
freely in the marshy soil. The nature of the territory, impeding
free and constant intercourse, hindered the establishment of
political unity. The Slavs of Polesia did not form a state ;
they had no king ; they lived in small isolated village groups,
under patriarchal government.

Their history, from the earhest times, was a tragedy. Their
proximity to the steppes of Southern Russia exposed them as a
prey to the Asiatic mounted nomads who successively invaded
and occupied the lands between the Don and the Dniester . Living
as they did, they could not combine against these enemies who
plundered them and carried them ofi as slaves. They could
only protect themselves by hiding in the forest or in the waters
of their lakes and rivers. They built their huts with several
doors to facilitate escape when danger threatened; they hid
their belongings, which were as few as possible, in the earth.
They could elude a foe by diving under water and lying for
hours on the bottom, breathing through a long reed, which only
the most experienced pursuers could detect.^

At a time of which we have no record the Slavs began to
spread silently beyond the borders of Polesia, northward, east-
ward, and southward. In the fourth century they were con-

native words for the beech, the larch,
and the yew, but they have a word
for the hornbeam ; hence theii*
original home must have lain in the
hornbeam zone, but outside the zones
of the other trees, and this con-
sideration determines it as Polesia.
The brief sketch I have given of the
primitive Slavs is derived from the
writings of Peisker (see Bibliography),
especially from 0. Med. H. ii. chap,
xiv. Rostafinski’s article, Les de-
meurea priviitives des Slaves, will be
found in Bull, de VAcad. des Sciences
de Cracovie, Ci. de phil. 1908.

^ Pseudo-Maurice, Strateg. xi. 5,
(It has been conjectured by Kula-
kovski, Viz. Vrem. vii. 108 sqq., that
the word TrXwrat which occurs in this
chapter for rafts or flosses is the
Slavonic ^lot.) The accounts of the

manners of the Slavs in this sixth-
century treatise and in Procopius,
B.G. hi. 14, are in general agreement
and siipi>lement each other. For
their religion (cult of fire, worsliip of
nymphs and rivers) see Peisker, op.
cit. p. 425 ; JireSek, GescJtiehte der
Bulgaren, 102 sqq. The Slavs under
this name arc, I think, first mentioned
in the fourth century by Caesariiis
(brother of Gregory of Xazianzus),
Quaestiones, F.G. xxxviii. p. 985 :
ot ^K\av7)ifoi /cat ^vcncviTaL, oi Kal
Aaroi5/3tot Tpocrayopevopevoi, oi jaiv
ywaiKopLacTTof^opovcnp 7)deQs Sid rd ttg-
irXnpdxfdai rod yaXanroi, puOip ot/cjp
roifs iL)TroriT$ovs rah rr^rpaLS iTrapdr-
Torres, ot Sk Kal rijs PopLcpV^ doca-
fiXi^Tov KpetafSopiat dwixovcnv. See
Mullenhofi, Deutsche Altertumshunde,
ii. p. 367.

THE SLAVS

295

qiiered by Hermanric, king of tbe Ostrogoths, and included in
bis extensive realm.^ They enjoyed a brief interlude of German
tyranny instead of nomad raids ; then the Huns appeared and
they were exposed once more to the oppression which had been
their secular lot. They had probably learned much from the
Goths ; but when they emerge at length into the full light of
history in the sixth century, they still retained most of the
characteristics which their life in Polesia had impressed upon
them. They lived far apart from one another in wretched hovels ; ^
though they had learned to act together, they did not abandon
their freedom to the authority of a king. Eevolting against
military discipline, they had no battle array and seldom met
a foe in the open field.^ Their arms were a shield, darts, and
poisoned arrows.^ They were perfidious, for no compact could
bind them all ; but they are praised for their hospitality to
strangers and for the fidelity of their women.

As we might expect, they had no common name. Slav, by
which we designate all the various peoples who spread far and
wide in Eastern Europe from the original Polesian home, comes
from Slovene, which appears originally to have been a local name
attached to a particular group dwelling at a place called Slovy ;
and the fortunes of the name are due to the fact that this group
was among the first to come into contact with the Roman
Empire. Before the reign of Justinian these Sclavenes, as the
historian Procopius calls them,® had along with another kindred
people, the Antae, settled in the neighbourhood of the Bulgarians,

^ Jordanes, Get, 119, where they them as tall and brave, and in com-
are called Veneti (as in Pliny and plexion reddish.

Tacitus). They attempted to resist, ® Jordanes also has Sclaveni {e.g.
numerositate pollentes — sed nihil valet Rom, 388), distinct from Antae. In
multitudo imbeUium. We can put no Pseudo -Maurice we get as the generic
credence in what Jordanes (after term XKkd'^oi, Procopius says {ib,
Oassiodorus) tells us of Hermanric’s 29) that x4ntae and Sclavenes had
immediate successors (wMch is at originally a common name XVagot,
variance with statements of Ammian), ivhich, aceordmg to Dobrovsky and
and. I cannot accept (as Peisker does, Safarik (Slav. AlUrtunier, i. 95), is
oj), cit. p. 431) his statement that a corriu>tion of Srbi (f8erbs). The
King Vinitiiar subdued the Antae, soon thesis maintamed by Safarik and
after the Humiie invasion ('/6. 247). Prinov, and defended by Jirecek,

“ Procopius, ih. 24. that Slavs had begun to settle into

® Pseudo -Maurice, who describes the Balkan Peninsula already in the
them as dvapx^ pdadXK7]\a (pp. third century A.D., and tliat the
275-276). Kostoboks were Slavonic

Ib., and Procopius, ib. 25, who peoples, must be rejected asj.'csting
says that some of them went into on insufficient evidence. ^See Safarik,
battle without tunic or cloak, and op. cit i. 213 sq., Jirecek, op. cit
wearmg only trousers. He describes eh, hi

296 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

along the banks of tbe Lower Danube. Antae is not a Slavonic
name, and it is not unlikely that they were a Slavonic tribe
which had been conquered and organised by a non-Slavonic
people — somewhat as in later times the Slavs of Moesia were
conquered by the Bulgarians and took their name. However
this may be, these new neighbours of the Empire now began to
exchange the role of victims for that of plunderers.

Like the Huns, the Antae and Sclavenes supplied auxiliaries
for the Roman army.^ And along with the Huns they were
always watching for an opportunity to cross the Danube and
plunder the Roman provinces. In the invasions which are
recorded in the reign of Justinian, it is sometimes the Slavs,
sometimes the Bulgarians who are mentioned, but it is probable
that they often came together. In a.d. 629 the Bulgarians
overran Lower Moesia and Scythia. They defeated Justin and
Baduarius, the generals who opposed them, and crossing the
Ballcan passes, invaded Thrace,^ There they captured another
general, Constantiolus, and obtained from the Emperor ten
thousand pieces of gold for his release. Another incursion in
the following year was repulsed with numerous losses to the
invaders by Mundus, the Master of Soldiers in Illyricum ; ^
and Chilbudius, who was appointed Master of Soldiers in Thrace
about the same time, not only prevented the barbarians from
crossing the Danube for three years, but terrorised them by
making raids into their own country. His success made him
rash. Venturing to cross the river with too small a force, he
was defeated and slain by the Sclavenes. No one of the same
ability replaced him, and the provinces were once more at the
mercy of the foe.^ We hear, however, of no serious invasion
till A.B. 540, when the Bulgarians, with a host exceptionally
huge, devastated the peninsula from sea to sea.® They forced

^ See Procopius, B.G. i. 27. 2. irX'q&ovs dLa<pupd)V ^ap(3dpct)v, Marcel-
They must have supplied recruits lixius, sub a, {Bulgares),
already in the fifth century, for in ^ Procopius, B,G. iii, 14. Chil-
4-68 we meet a man of Slavonic budius was appointed in the fourth
name (Anagast) who had risen to be year of Justinian, a.d. 530-631, and
Mag. mil of Thrace. See above was slain three years later. Here
vol. i. p. 434. ^ the ’'Ai'rai and 'ZKXalipvoL sue

^ John Mai. xviii. 437. Theo- associated as invaders,
phanes, a.m. 0031. Justin was ® Procopius, B.V. ii.. 4. John of
slain. Baduarius is not to be con- Ephesus, who was then in Con-
fused with his namesake, son-in-law stantinople, speaks of Justinian barri-
of the Emperor Justin II. cading himself in his Palace, ILM,

® 16. 461 OdyvoL juerd iroXXov Part II. p. 485.

tlieir way tlirougli tlie Long Wall and spread terror to the suburbs
of the capital. They occupied the Chersonesus, and some of
them even crossed the Hellespont and ravaged the opposite
coast. They laid waste Thessaly and Northern Greece; the
Peloponnesus was saved by the fortifications of the Isthmus.
Many of the castles and walled towns fell into their handsd
and their captives were numbered by tens of thousands. This
experience moved Justinian to undertake the construction of
an extensive system of fortifications which will be described
hereafter.

Soon after this invasion a quarrel broke out between the
Sclavenes and the Antae, and Justinian seized the opportunity
to inflame their rivalry by offering to the Antae a settlement
at Turris, an old foundation of Trajan on the further side of
the Lower Danube, where as federates of the Empire, in receipt
of annual subsidies, they should act as a bulwark against the
Bulgarians.^ We are not told whether this plan was carried
out, but we may infer that the proposal was accepted, from the
fact that in the subsequent invasions the Antae appear to have
taken no part.^ In a.d. 645 the Sclavenes were thoroughly
defeated in Thrace by Narses and a body of Heruls whom lie
had engaged for service in Italy Three years later the same
marauders devastated Illyricum as far as Dyrrhachium,^ and
in A.D. 649 a band of 3000 penetrated to the Hebrus, where they
divided into two parties, of which one ravaged Illyricum and
the other Thrace. The maritime city of Topirus was taken,
and the cruelties committed by the barbarians exceeded in
atrocity aU that is recorded of the invasions of the Huns of
Attila.^ In the following summer the Sclavenes came again,
intending to attack Thessalonica, but Germanus happened to be

^ Thirty-two fortresses ill Illyricum and his pretensions wore exposed,
were taken, and the town of Gas- Procopius docs not tell the sequel,
sandrea was captured by assault. 4 -j.?

- Procoiiius, B..Q. iii. 14. Tunis g >/ •••’ ^

had long been dereliet ; JustiniaW^^^

apparently proposed to hawe it re- ® Procopius relates this invasion
stored at his expense. under the year O40-550 (Hi. 3S). I

^ The Antae accepted, on condition infer that it belongs to o41), from tlie
that a captive, whom they believed fact that the next invasion was clearly
to be Chilbudius (the general who in the summer of 550 (iii. 40. 1 ; cp. 39.
was slain in a.d. 533-534), should 20). It is often placed in 551 (as by
organise the settlement. The im- Diehl, op. cit. 220). The impaUngs
postor was sent to Constantinople 'which the Sclavenes practised may
and cap)tured by Narses in Thrace, have been learned from the Huns.

ms HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

at Sardica, makmg preparations, to take reinforcements to Italy.
The terror of his name diverted the barbarians from their south-
ward course and they invaded Dalmatia.^ Later in the year
the Sclavenes, reinforced by newcomers, gained a bloody victory
over an Iniperial army at Hadrianople,^ penetrated to the Long
Wall, but were pursued and forced to give up much of their
booty.

Two years later there was another inroad, and on this occasion
the Gepids aided and abetted the Sclavenes, helping them, when
they were hard pressed by Roman troops, to escape across the
river, but exacting high fees from the booty-laden fugitives.®
Permanent Slavonic settlements on Imperial soil were not
to begin till about twenty years after Justinian’s death, but
the movements we have been following were the prelude to the
territorial occupation which was to determine the future history
of south-eastern Europe.

§ 2. The Gepids and Lombards ; Kotrigurs and Utigurs

' The most powerful of the barbarous peoples on the Danube
frontier, against whom the Emperors had to protect their
European subjects, were the Gepids of Transylvania. The old
policy of recognising them as federates and paying them yearly
subsidies, seems to have been successful until Sirmium was taken
from the Ostrogoths by Justinian, and being weakly held was
allowed to fall into their hands. Establishing themselves in this
stronghold they occupied a portion of Dacia Eipensis and made
raids into the southern provinces.^ Justinian immediately dis-
continued the payment of subsidies and sought a new method
of checking their hostilities. He found it in the rivalry of
another East-German nation, the Langobardi, who had recently
appeared upon the scene of Danubian politics. Yet another
people, the Heruls, -who belonged to the same group, played a

^ Germanus liad formerly .inflicted Germanus, and John Pliagas, bnt the
a great defeat on the Antae, when he supreme comniaTid 'svas entrusted to
was M'aster of Soldiers in Thrace ScliolasticuvS, a Patiee eunuch, other-
{ib. 40. 0) ; the date is unknown. wise unknown. The soldiers forced

^ The defeated army was under their leaders to give battle against
wxdl- known leaders: Constantian their wish.

(Count of the Stable), Aratius, ® A piece of gold for every j.)erson
Nazares (who was or had been 7nag. mil they ferried into safety. Ib. iv. 25. 5.
lllyrm, B.Q. ill. Ih 18), Justin, son of ^ Procopius, B.Q. ii. 14.

XX THE GEPIDS AND LOMBARDS 299

minor part in the drama, in which the Gepids and Langobardi
were the principal actors, and Jnstinian the director.

It was more than a century since the Langobardi, or Lombards,
as we may call them in anticipation of the later and more familiar
corruption of their name, had left their ancient homes on the
Lower Elbe, where they were neighbours of the Saxons, whose
customs resembled their own, but the details of their long
migration are obscure.^ Soon after the conquest of the Rugians
by Odovacar, they took possession of the Rugian lands, to the
north of the province of Noricum, but they remained here only
for a few years and then settled in the plains between the Theiss
and the Danube.^ At this time, it was in the reign of Anastasius,
they lived as tributar}^ subjects of another East-German people,
more savage than themselves. We have already met the
Heruls taking part in the overthrow of the Humiic realm and
contributing mercenary troops to the Imperial service. In
the second half of the fifth century they seem to have fixed
their abode somewhere in North-western Hungary, and when
the Ostrogoths left Pannonia they became a considerable and
aggressive power dominating the regions beyond the Upper
Danube. They invaded the provinces of Noricum and Pannonia.,
and won overlordship over the Lombards. Theoderic, following
his general policy towards his German neighbours, allied himself
with their king Rodulf, whom he adopted as a son.^ But soon

^ The original home of the Lango- (where a bibliography will be found),
bardi was in Scandinavia, but they ^ C am/pi fate ntes~¥(Ad {Origo and
had settled in the regions of the Lo’wer Paul, Hist. Lang, i. 20) ; which in
Elbe before the time of Augustus. Ohron. Oothorurn, ch. ii., is called
Their southward migration is dated Trmia.

by modern historians as not earlier ^ Cassiodorus, Var. iv. 2, a letter
than the beginning of the fourth addressed to the king of the Heruls,
century. It is probable that the old whose name comes from the Lombard
interpretation of their name (Long sources. Its date is between o07
Beards) is the true one (see Biasel, and oil, so that the battle must be
Die W anderziige der Langohardeny jaiaced, not c. 505 with Schmidt, but
sqq.). The chief sources of their early at earliest 507-508, and at latest 511-
history are the Origo gentis Lango- 512 (see next note). If it is true that
hardorum (c. a,d. GoO) ; Eredegarius, the Lombards moved from Rugia to
Ghron, iii. 65 (embodying Lombard Hie Oamfi patentes three years before
tradition); Pauius Diac. the battle (Paul, ib.), the earliest

Book I. (based on the Origo). See, date for their change of abode is
on the difficult geographical and 504-505, The name of the Lombard
chronological questions Gonneeted with king at fcliis time was Tato. Rodulf,
the movements of the Lombards, the H^erui, vus slain in the battle
Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders f yoL (Paul, ib,). The best source is Pro-
V. ; Schmidt, Gesch, der deutschen eopius, B.6r. ii. 14 ; the fuller story of
Stdmme, i 427 sqq.; Blascl, op. cit. Lombard tradition is largely legendary.

300 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

afterwards (a.b. 507-512), they attacked the Lombards without
provocation and were defeated in a saEguinary battle.

This defeat had important results. It led to the dissolution
of the Herul nation into two portions, of which one migrated
northward and returned to the old home of the people in
Scandinavia. The rest moved first into the former territory
of the Eugians, but finding the land a desert they begged the
Gepids to allow them to settle in their country. The Gepids
granted the request, but repaid themselves by carrying off their
cattle and violating their women. Then the Heruls sought the
protection of the Emperor, who readily granted them land in
one of the Illyrian provinces.^ But their rapacious instincts
soon drove them to plunder and maltreat the provincials, and
Anastasius was compelled to send an army to chastise them.
Many were killed off ; the rest made complete submission, and
were suffered to remain. No people quite so barbarous had
ever yet been settled on Eoman soil. It was their habit to put
to death the old and the sick ; and the women were expected
to hang themselves when their husbands died. When Justinian
came to the throne he effected their conversion to Christianity.
Their king with his nobles was invited to Constantinople,
where he was baptized with all his party, the Emperor standing
sponsor, and was dismissed with handsome gifts. Larger
subsidies were granted to them, and better lands in the neigh-
bourhood of Singidunum, with the province of Second Pannonia
(a.d. 527-528).^ Henceforward, for some years, they fulfilled
their duties as Federates, and supplied contingents to the Eoman
army. But though their savagery had been mitigated after
they embraced the Christian faith, they were capricious and
faithless ; they had not even the merit of chaste manners, for
which Tacitus and Salvian praise the Germanic peoples ; they
were the worst people in the whole world, in the opinion of a
contemporary historian.^

Suddenly it occurred to them that they would prefer a
republican form of government, though their kings enjoyed only
a shadow of authority. Accordingly they slew their king, but

^ Probably Dacia Ripensis. Marcel- 844 =a.d. 533). Cp. Menander, /r. 9
linns, s.a. 512; Procopius, ib, xv, 1. iv.).

2 Procopius, B.G, ii. 14. 33 ; iii. ® Procopius, ib> ii. 14. 36 kcu
34. 42 ; John Mai. xviii. 427 ; John /xl^ets o^x bcrtcLS reXovcnif, dXXas re kuI
Eph., E.l/. Part II. p. 475 a. avhpiav Kal opusv.

THE GEPIDS AND LOMBARDS

301

very soon, for they were unstable as water, they repented, and
decided fco choose a ruler among the people of their owm race
who had settled in Scandinavia. Some of their leading men
were sent on this distant errand and duly returned with a
candidate for the throne.^ But in the meantime, during their
long absence, the Heruls, with characteristic indecision, bethought
themselves that they ought not to elect a king from Scandinavia
without the consent of Justinian, and they invited him to choose
a king for them. Justinian selected a certain Suartuas, a Herul
who had long lived at Constantinople. He was welcomed and
acclaimed by the Heruls, but not many days had passed when
the news came that the envoys who had gone to Scandinavia
would soon arrive. Suartuas ordered the Heruls to march forth
and destroy them ; they obeyed cheerfully ; but one night they
all left him and went over to the rival whom they had gone forth
to slay. Suartuas returned alone to Constantinople.

The consequence of this escapade was that the Heruls split
up again into two portions. The greater part attached themselves
to the Gepids ; the rest remained federates of the Empire.^
This was the position of affairs when about the middle of the
sixth century war broke out between the Gepids and the
Lombards,

The Lombards are represented as ha^dng been Christians
while they were still under the yoke of the Heruls. After they
had won their independence they lived north of the Danube
in the neighbourhood of the Gepids.^ We hear nothing more of
them until we find their king Wacho, in a.d. 539, refusing to
send help to the Ostrogoths on the ground that he was a friend
and ally of Justinian.^ Some years later the Emperor assigned
to them settlements in Noricum and Pannonia,^ and granted
them the subsidies which it was usual to jDay to federates. We

^ In his account of this episode 3000 joined the Gepids. Cp. ii. 15.
Procopius {ib, 15) designates Scandi- 37.

navia as Thule and describes it ® This was the j)eriod of the lin-
as ten times larger than Britain, guistic change, which is known as
Among the peoples who inhabit it he the second shifting of consonants and
knows of two, the Gauts and the produced the High. German language.
Skrithilinoi. Of the Gauts in Sweden It originated in southern Germany,
we otherwise know, and it is natural and the Lombard language was
to identify the Skritliifinoi with the affected by it.

F,inns. ^ ^ Above, p. 205,

2 Proeojhus, B.Q. in. 34. 43, 33. 10 re TrbXei

says that the total fighting strength {Noreia=Neumarkt) Kal roh eVt
of the Heruls was 4600 men, of whom vovim oxupt^Ataert re Kal dWoLs x^ptois.

302 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

may take it tliat lie deliberately adopted this policy in order to
use the Lombards as a counterpoise to the Gepids, with whom
he had recently broken off relations.^

It was not long before these two peoples quarrelled and
prepared for war. xiiidoin at this time was king of the Lombards^
and Thorisin of the Gepids. They both sent ambassadors to
Gonstantinople, the Lombards to beg for military aid,^ the Gepids
hardly hoping to do more than induce the Emperor to remain
neutral. Justinian decided to assist the Lombards and sent a
body of 10,000 horse, who were directed to proceed to Italy
\vhen they had dealt with the Gepids. These troops met an
army of hostile Heruls and defeated them severely, but in the
meantime the Lombards and Gepids had composed their
differences, to the disappointment of Justinian. It was felt,
however, by both sides that war was ine\dtable and was only
postponed. The Gepids, fearing that their enemies, supported
by Constantinople, would prove too strong for them, concluded
an alliance with the Kotrigurs.

The Kotrigurs, who were a branch of the Hunnic race,
occupied the steppes of South Russia, from the Don to the
Dniester, and were probably closely allied to the Bulgarians'^
or Onogimdurs — the descendants of Attila’s Huns — who had
their homes in Bessarabia and Walachia. They were a formid-
able people and Justinian had long ago taken precautions to
keep them in check, in case they should threaten to attack the
Empire, though it was probably for the Roman cities of the
Crimea, Cherson and Bosporus, that he feared, rather than for
the Danubian pro^dnces. As his policy on the Danube was to

^ Procopius relates the two events
together, under the fourteenth year of
the Gothic War, i,e. a.i>. 548-549,
but in a digression which assigns only
the loose date “ when Totila had
gained the upper hand ” (ib. 7). In
the following chapter (iii. 34) he
anticipates the chronology {xpoPip 5^
i!<( 7 T€pov) and narrates the war of the
Gepids and Lombards, which was
thus subsequent to a.d. 549.

2 Audoin (half-brother of Waeho)
married the daughter of Hermanfrid,
king of the Tluiringians. The marriage
was arranged by Justinian. Por
after Hermanfrid’s death, his wife
Amalaberga (Theoderic’s niece) had
returned to Italy with her children.

and they were afterwards brought
to Constantinople by Belisarius. See
B.O. i. 31. 2 ; iv. 12.

® Procopius, who puts long speeches
into the mouths of the envoys, makes
the Lombards urge that they were
Catholics, not Arians like tlie Gepids
(iii. 34, 24). Yet when they sub-
sequently conquered Italy, they were
Arians. They seem to have been
exceptionally iiidiiferent to religion.
Cp. Hodgkin, op. cit v, 158.

^ The name Kotiigur is to be com-
pared with Kotragos in the genealogy
of the Bulgarians. Thcopiianes de-
scribes KorpayoL near L. Maeotis as
6fi6(pvXoL of the Bulgarians (a.m. 6171).

XX THE KOTRIGURS AND UTIGURS 303

use the Lombards as a check on the Gepids^ so his policy in
Scythia was to use another Hunnic people, the Utigurs, as a
check on the Kotrigurs. The Utigurs lived beyond the Don,
on the east of the Sea of Azov, and Justinian cultivated their
friendship by yearly gifts.

When a host of 12,000 Kotrigurs, incited by the Gepids,
crossed the Danube and ravaged the Illyiian lands, Justinian
immediately despatched an envoy to Sandichl, king of the
Utigurs, to bid him prove his friendship to the Empire by
invading the territory of their neighbours. Sandichl, an ex-
perienced warrior, fulfilled the Emperor’s expectations ; he
crossed the Don, routed the enemy, and carried their women
and children into slavery. When the news reached Constanti-
nople, Justinian sent one of liis generals^ to the Kotrigurs who
were still plundering the Balkan provinces, to inform them of
what had happened in their own land, and to offer them a large
sum of money to evacuate Eoman territory. They accepted
the proposal, and it was stipulated that if they found their own
country occupied by the Utigurs, they should return and receive
from the Emperor lands in Thrace. Soon afterwards another
party of 2000 Kotrigurs, with their wives and children, arrived
as fugitives on Eoman soil. They were led by Sinnion, who
had fought in Africa as a commander of Hunnic auxiliaries
in the Vandal campaign of Belisarius. The Emperor accorded
them a settlement in Thrace. This complacency shown to their
foes excited the jealous indignation of the Utigurs, and king
Sandichl sent envoys to remonstrate with Justinian on the
injustice and impolicy of his action. They were appeased by
large gifts, which it was obviously the purpose of their coming
to obtain.^

In the following year (a.b. 552), the war so often threatened
and so often postponed between the Lombards and Gepids broke
out. The Gepids sought to renew their old alliance with the
Empire, and Justinian consented,^ but when the Lombards
soon afterwards asked him to fulfil his engagements and send

^ Aratius, tlie Armenian. The tihian’s policy. The date of these
name of the Kotrigur leader was events seems to be a.;d. 551. Cp.
Chinialon. ^ .

- Procopius, iv. 18 and 19. ^ Tb. 25. 8-9. Procopius obliquely

The long speech which the author criticises Justinian by emphasising
puts into the mouths of the envoys is, the solemnity of the oaths with which
of course, his own criticism of Jus- the treaty was confirmed.

304 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

troops to help them he denounced his new treaty with the
Gepids on the pretext that they had helped Sclavenes to cross
the Danube. Among the leaders of the forces which marched
to co-operate -with the Lombards, were Justin and Justinian,
the Emperor’s cousins, but they were detained on their way to
suppress a revolt at Ulpiana, and never arrived at their destina-
tion. Only those troops which were commanded by Amala-
fridas, the brother-in-law of the Lombard Idng/ pursued their
march and took part in the campaign. The Lombards won a
complete victory over the Gepids, and Audoin, in announcing
the good news to Justinian, reproached him for failing to furnish
the help which they had a right to expect in consideration of
the large force of Lombards which had recently gone forth to
support Eoman arms in Italy.

After this defeat the Gepids concluded treaties of perpetual
peace with the Lombards and with the Empire,^ and peace
seems to have been preserved so long as Justinian reigned.
After his death the enmity between these two German peoples
broke out again, and the Lombards, aided by other allies,
eliminated the name of the Gepids from the political map of
Europe.

§ 3. The Invasion of Zabergan (a.d. 558)

In a few years the Kotrigurs recovered from the chastisement
which had been inflicted upon them by their Utigur neighbours,
and in the winter of a.d. 558“669, imder a chieftain whose name
was Zabergan, a host of these barbarians crossed the frozen
Danube, and passing unopposed through Scythia and Moesia,
entered Thrace. These provinces would seem to have been
entirely denuded of troops. In Thrace Zabergan divided his
followers into three armies. One was sent to Greece, to ravage
the unprotected country; the second invaded the Thracian
Chersonese ; the third army, consisting of seven thousand cavalry,
rode under Zabergan himself to Constantinople.

The atrocities committed by the third body are thus de-
scribed by a contemporary writer : ^

^ Ht was son of Hermatifrid ; see xviii. p. 490 ; Theophanes, a.m.
above, p. 302, 2. 6051. The Huns were almost a whole

2 Ib. 27. 21. year in Eoman territory. See Ciin-

3 Agathias v. 2 ; ep. John Mai ton, T.R,, sub a.d. 559. "

305

THE INVASION OF 'ZAF'EmAW..

As no resistance was offered to their course, they overran the country
and plundered without mercy, obtaining a great booty and large numbers
of captives. Among the rest, well-born women of chaste life were most
cruelly carried off to undergo the worst of ail misfortunes, and minister
to the unbridled lust of the barbarians; some who in early youth had
renounced mamage and the cares and pleasures of this life, and had
immured themselves in some religious retreat, deeming it of the highest
importance to be free from cohabitation with men, were dragged from the
chambers of their virginity and violated. Many married women who
happened to be pregnant were dragged away, and when their hour was
come brought forth children on the march, unable to conceal their throes,
or to take up and swaddle the new-born babes ; they were hauled along,
in spite of all, hardly allowed even time to suffer, and the wretched infants
were left where they fell, a prey for dogs and buds, as though this were
the purpose of their appearance in the world.

To such a pass had the Roman Empire come that, even within the
precincts of the districts surroimding the Imperiah city, a ver^ small
number of barbarians committed such enormities^ Their audacity went
so far as to pass the Long Walls and approach the inner fortifications. Eor
time and neglect had in many places dilapidated the great wall, and other
parts were easily thrown down by the barbarians, as there was no military
garrison, no engines of defence. Not even the bark of a dog was to be
heard; the wall was less efficiently protected than a pig-sty or a sheep-
cot.

The Huns encamped at Melantias, a village on the small
river Athyras, which flows into the Propontis. Their proximity
created a panic in Constantinople, whose inhabitants saw in
imagination the horrors of siege, conflagration, and famine. The
terror was not confined to the lower classes ; the nobles trembled
in their palaces, the Emperor was alarmed on his throne. All
the treasures of the churches, in the tract of country between
the Euxine and the Golden Horn, were either carted into the
city or shipped to the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus. The un-
disciplined corps of the Scholarian guards, ignorant of real
warfare, did not inspire the citizens with much confidence.

On this critical occasion Justinian appealed to his veteran
general Belisarius to save the seat of empire. In spite of his
years and feebleness Belisarius put on his helmet and cuirass
once more. He relied chiefly on a small body of three hundred
men who had fought with him in Italy ; the other troops that
he mustered knew nothing of war, and they were more for
appearance than for action. The peasants who had fled before

^ Theophaues, ib,, notices that two defeated by the Huns before they
generals, Sergius and Ederinas, were reached the Long Wall.

voii. n ■'■■■■

306 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the barbarians from tlieir ruined homesteads in Thrace ac-
companied the httle army. He encamped at the village of
Chettus, and employed the peasants in digging a wide trench
round the camp. Spies were sent out to discover the numbers
of the enemy, and at night many beacons were kindled in the
plain with the purpose of misleading the Huns as to the number
of the forces sent out against them. For a while they were
misled, but it was soon known that the Eoman army was small,
and two thousand cavalry selected by Zabergan rode forth to
annihilate it. The spies informed Belisarius of the enemy’s
approach, and he made a skilful disposition of his troops. He
concealed two hundred peltasts and javelin-men in the woods
on either side of the plain, close to the place vrhere he expected
the attack of the barbarians ; the ambuscaders, at a given
signal, \vere to shower their missiles on the hostile ranks. The
object of this was to compel the lines of the enemy to close in, in
order to avoid the javelins on the flank, and thus to render
their superior numbers useless through inability to deploy.
Belisarius himself headed the rest of the army ; in the rear
followed the rustics, who were not to engage in the battle, but
were to accompany it with loud shouts and cause a clatter with
wooden beams, ^which they carried for that purpose.

All fell out as Behsarius had plaimed. The Huns, pressed
by the peltasts, thronged together, and were hindered both from
using their bows and arrows with efiect, and from circumvent-
ing the Eoman wings. The noise of the rustics in the rear, com-
bined with the attack on the flanks, gave the foe the impression
that the Eoman army was immense, and that they were being
surrounded; clouds of dust obscured the real situation, and
the barbarians turned and fled. Four hundred perished before
they reached their camp at Melantias, while not a single Eoman
w^as mortally wmunded. The camp was immediately abandoned,
and all the Kotrigurs hurried away, imagining that the victors
were still on their track. But by the Emperor’s orders Belisarius
did not pursue them.

The fortunes of the Hunnic troops who w^ere sent against
the Chersonese were not happier. Germanus, a native of Prima
Justiniana, had been appointed some time previously com-
mandant in that peninsula, and he now proved himself a capable
officer. As the Huns could make no breach in the great wall,

THE INVASION OF ZABERGAN

307

wMch barred tbe approach to the peninsula and was skilfully
defended by the dispositions of Germanus, they resorted to the
expedient of manufacturing boats of reeds fastened together in
sheaves; each boat was large enough to hold four men ; one
hundred and fifty were constructed, and six hundred men
embarked secretly in the bay of Aenus (near the mouth of the
Hebrus), in order to land on the south-western coast of the
Chersonese. Germanus learned the news of their enterprise
with delight, and immediately manned twenty galleys with
armed men. The fleet of reed-built boats was easily anni-
hilated, not a single barbarian escaping. This success was
followed up by an excursion of the Romans from the wall against
the army of the dispirited besiegers, who then abandoned their
enterprise and joined Zabergan, now retreating after the defeat
at Chettus.

The other division of the Huns, which had been sent in
the direction of Greece, also returned without achieving any
signal success. They had not penetrated farther than
Thermopylae, where the garrison of the fortress prevented their
advance.

Thus, although Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly suffered
terribly from this invasion, Zabergan was frustrated in all three
points of attack, by the ability of Belisarius, Germanus, and
the garrison of Thermopylae. Justinian redeemed the captives
for a considerable sum of money, and the Kotrigurs retreated
beyond the Danube. But the wily Emperor laid a trap for their
destruction. He despatched a characteristic letter to Sandichl,
the king of the Utigurs, whose friendship he still cultivated
by periodical presents of money. He informed Sandichl that
bhe Kotrigurs had invaded Thrace and .carried off all the gold
that was destined to enrich the treasury of the Utigurs. '' It
would have been easy for us,” ran the Imperial letter, to have
destroyed them utterly, or at least to have sent them . empty
away. But W’-e did neither one thing nor the other, because we
wished to test your sentiments. For if you are really valiant
and wise, and not disposed to tolerate the appropriation by
others of what belongs to you, you are not losers ; for you have
nothing to do but punish the enemy and receive from them
your money at the sword’s point, as though we had sent it to
you by their hands.” The Emperor further threatened that.

308 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

if Sandichl proved himself craven enough to let the insult pass,
he would transfer his amity to the Kotrigurs. The letter had
the desired effect. The Utigurs were stirred up against their
neighbours, and ceaseless hostilities wasted the strength of the
two peoples.^

The historian who recorded the expedition of Zabergan con-
cludes his story by remarking that these two Hunnic peoples
were soon so weakened by this continual warfare that though they
were not wholly extinguished they were incorporated in larger
empires and lost their individualities and even their names.^
The power which threatened them wm already at the gates of
Europe at the time of Zabergan's invasion.^

^ L The Defences of the Balkan Pe^iinstda

Unable to sjmre military forces adequate to protect the
Balkan provinces against the inroads of the barbarians, Justinian
endeavoured to mitigate the evil by an elaborate system of
fortresses, which must have cost his treasury large sums. In
Thrace, Macedonia, Dardania, Epirus, and Greece, new forts
were built, old forts were restored and improved, about six
hundred in all.^

Thrace had always been defended by a line of fortresses on
both sides of the Danube. They were now renovated and their
number was increased. Behind them, in the provinces of Lower
Moesia and Scythia, there were about fifty walled towns and
castles. South of the Balkan range, the regions of Mount
Ehodope and the Thracian plain were protected by 112 fortresses.
The defences of Hadrianople and Philippopolis, Plotinopolis and

^ Agatliias, v. 25 ,* Jolin Ant., /n
217 (F.H.G, iv.) ; Menander, fr. 1,
Be leg. Rom. Another invasion of
Hnns is recorded in a.b. 562 (Theo-
phanes, a.m. 6054) ; Anastasiopolis
V'as captured.

^ 2 Agathias, v. 25 ; while the
Kotrigurs were subjugated by the
Avars, the Utigurs were conquered
by the western Turks about 576 (cp.
Menander, fr. 14, Be leg Rom. p. 208).

® Below;. § 6.

^ The source is Procopius, Aed. iv.,
where full lists of the forts (of which
few can be identified) will be found.

It seems probable that the fortifica-
tions \vere carried out on a general
plan, after a.d. 540 (we know that
Cassandrea and the Chersonese -worn
fortified after that date, and Tophus
after 549), The invasion of that
year had displayed the deficiencies
of the existing fortifications. Most
of the old military forts had only one
tower (they were called f.wiw7rvpyLa).
Justinian’s seem to have been larger
and had several towers. Ib. 5, 4.
On the general principles of the
defensive fortifications of the pro-
vinces, as illustrated by the rcmaiUvS
in Africa, see above, p. 148.

XX DEFENCES OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA 309

Beroea (Stara Zagora) were restored, and Topiriis, under Mount
Rliodope, wliich. tke Sclavenes had taken by assault, was care-
fully fortified. Trajanopolis and Maximianopolis, in the same
region, were secured by new walls, and the populous village of
Balluriis was converted into a fortified town. On the Aegean
coast, the walls of Aenus were raised in lieiglit, and Anastasio-
polis strengthened by a new sea-wall. The wall, which hedged
in the Thracian Chersonese but had proved too weak to keep
out the Bulgarians, was demolished, and a new and stronger
defence was built, which proved effective against the Kotrigurs.
Sestos was made impregnable, and a high tower was erected at
Elaeus. On the Propontis, Justinian built a strong city at
Rhaedestus and restored Heraclea. Finally, he repaired and
strengthened the Long Wall of Anastasius.

The provinces belonging to the Prefecture of Illyricum were
strewn with fortresses proportionate in number to the greater
dimensions of the territory. The stations on the Danube from
Singidunum to Novae were set in order. In Dardania, the
Emperor’s native province, eight new castles were built and
sixty-one restored. Here he was concerned not only to provide
for the defence of the province but to make it worthy of his own
greatness by imposing and weU-furnished cities. Scupi, near
the village where he was born, began a new era in its history
under the name of Justiniana Prima, though the old name
refused to be displaced, and the town is now Uskiib. It was
raised to high dignity as the ecclesiastical metropolis of Illyricum ;
the number of its churches, its municipal offices, the size of its
porticoes, the beauty of its market-places impressed the visitor.
Ulpiana (Lipljan), too, was embellished, and became Justiniana
Secunda,^ and near it the Emperor founded a new town called
Justinoj)olis in honour of Ms uncle. In the centre of the penin-
sula the walls of Sardica and Naissus were rebuilt.

The inhabitants of Macedonia were protected by forty-six
forts and towns. Cassandrea, which had failed to withstand
the Sclavenes, was made impregnable. In the two provinces
of Epirus, forty-five new forts were built and fifty rehabilitated.
In Thessaly, the decayed walls of Thebes, Pharsalus, Demetrias,

^ For the identiiicatioii of the two sg'. ; Part IV. 134 sqq. Scupi had been
Justinianas see Evans, Antiquarian ruined by an earthquake in 518
Researches in Illyricum^ Part III. 62 (Marcellinus, s.a.).

BIO HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Larissa, and Diocletianopolis on Lake Castoiia, and other
towns ^ were restored. The defences of Thermopylae were
renewed and iniproYed, and the historic barrier which had
hitherto been guarded , by the local farmers was entrusted to
2000 soldiers.^ The Isthmus of Corinth was fortified anew,^
and the walls of Athens and the Boeotian towns, which were
dilapidated by age or earthquakes, were restored.

.. .. This,, immense^' work . of' defence ,'did not . .avail ; to^ keep the .
barbarians out of the land. Writing in a.I). 550 Procopius' sums
up the situation : Illyricum and Thrace, from the Ionian Sea
to the suburbs of Byzantium, were overrun almost every year
since Justinian’s accession to the throne by Huns, Sclavenes,
and Antae, who dealt atrociously with the inhabitants. In
every invasion I suppose that about 200,000 Eoman subjects
were killed or enslaved ; the whole land became a sort of Scythian
desert,”^ The historian’s supposition doubtless exaggerates
the truth considerably, and he would have been more instructive
if he had told us how far the improved fortifications mitigated
the evils of the invasions. It is clear, however, that it was a
great advantage for the inhabitants to have more numerous and
safer refuges when the barbarians approached ; and we may
guess that if statistics had been kept they would have shown
a decrease in the number of the victims.

§ 5, The Crimea

No cities in the Eoman Empire deserve greater credit for
preserving Greek civilisation in barbarous surroundings than
Cherson and Bosporus in the lonely Cimmerian peninsula. They
were the great centres for the trade between the Mediterranean
and the basins of the Volga and the Don. They were exposed
to the attacks of Huns both from the north and from the east,
and the subsidies which Justinian paid to the Utigurs must
have been chiefly designed to purchase immunity for these

^ Metropolis (near the niodem
Karditsa), Gomphi, Trieca (now
Trikkala), Caesarea, Centanropolis.

“ Procopius, Aed, iv. 2. 14 ; B.A.
26, 33, where it is said that, on the
pretext of paying the garrison, the
municipal rates of all the cities of
Greece were appropriated to the

treasury ; this change is attributed
to the iogothete Alexander Psalidios.

2 The fortress of Megara had been
restored apj:)arently under Anastasius,
C,LO. iv. 8622. Op. Hertzberg,
Gesch. Grieche'rilands, iii. 409.

^ ILA. 18, 20.

THE CRIMEA

311

outposts of tke Empire. They had always stood outside the
provincial system, and the political position of Bosporus seems
to have been more independent of the central power than that
of Cherson, where the Emperors maintained a company of
artillery {ballistarii)} In the fifth century the bond between
Bosporus and Constantinople was broken, a change which was
doubtless a result of the Hunnic invasion, and during this period
it was probably tributary to the neighbouring Huns. But in
the reign of Justin. the men of Bosporus sought the protection
of the Empire and were restored to its fold,^ They soon found
that they would have to pay for the privilege. They were not
indeed asked to pay the ordinary provincial taxes, but Cherson
and Bosporus were required to contribute to the maintenance
of a merchant fleet which we may suppose was intended ex-
clusively for use in the Euxine waters. This ship-money was
also imposed on Lazica, when that land was annexed to the
Empire.^

The Crimean Huns occupied the territory between the two
cities. It is not clear whether they stood in the definite relation
of federates to the Empire ; but in a.d. 528 their king Grod
was induced to come to Constantinople, where he was baptized,
the Emperor acting as sponsor, and he undertook to defend
Eoman interests in the Crimea.^ At the same time Justinian
sent a garrison of soldiers to Bosporus under the command of
a tribune. Grod, on returning home, took the images of his"
heathen gods — they were made of silver and electrum, — and
melted them down. But the priests and the people were enraged
by this impiety, and led by his brother, Mugel, they slew" Grod,
made Mugel king, and killed the garrison of Bosporus. The
Emperor then sent considerable forces which intimidated the

^ Cp. Kulakovski, Proshloe Tavridi^
c. viii. For the geograiDhy of ^the
j)eninsuia see E. H. Minns, Scythians
and Greeks (1913), where a sketch of
the history of Cherson will be found.

“ Procopius, B.P. L 12. It is a
disputed question whether the in-
scription of the Caesar Tiberius
Julius Dip tunes, “friend of Caesar,
friend of the Ponians,” belongs to
A.D. o22 {as Kulakovski maintains,
59). A count and an eparch are
mentioned, I'aising the j^resumption
that the stone w^as inscribed when
Bosporus was subject to the Empire.

The inscription is published in Laty-
shev, ii. 39.

® See the Novel of Tiberius of a.d.
575 (== Justinian, Nov, 163) iirl roXs
Neyo/J-ivcns rQu eidiZ'P TrXtcLfjLois yLPOjuePOLs
iwi re T7}S Bocnropov

/cat HeproPijcrov.

^ John Mai. xviii. 431. John Epli.
//.A?. Part II. p. 475, wkere the king
is called Gordian. Some time pre-
viously, Probus had been seiit) to
Grod to induce him to send help to
the Iberians against Persia. Pro-
copius, J3.P. i. 12. 6.

312 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Huns and tranquillity was restored.^ Bosporus was then strongly
fortified, the walls of Cherson, which were old and weak, were
rebuilt, and two new forts were erected in the south of the
peninsula.^

In the north of the Crimea there was a small Gothic settle-
ment, apparently a remnant of the Ostrogothic kingdom which
in the fourth century extended along the north coast of the
Euxine. These Goths are described as few in number, but
good soldiers, skilful in agriculture, and a people of hospitable
habits. They were under the protection of the Empire and were
ready, when the Emperor summoned them, to fight against Hs
foes. Their chief place was Dory on the coast; they would
have no walled towms or forts in their land, but Justinian built
long walls at the points where it was most exposed to an invader.^

From these genuine Goths of the Crimea we must carefully
distinguish another people, who were also described as Goths
but perhaps erroneously. These were the Tetraxites (a name
of mysterious origin) who lived in the peninsula of Taman over
against Bosporus.^ They too were a small people, and their
fate depended on the goodwill of the Utigurs,^ whose kingdom

^ John Mai. ib. ; cp. Theophanes, chief source for this people is Pro-
A.H. 6020. It would be interesting copius, Aed. iii. 7. 13-17, He de-
to know more about this expedition, scribes them as 'VcojxaUop ivcnroi^dou
According to John Mai, transports When he says that they numbered
of soldiers were sent by sea, and a about 3000, he perhaps means the
large force under Baduarius by land, men of military age. For these Goths
starting from Odessus. The march of and the Tetraxites see Loewe, Die
a Roman army by the northern coast Eeste der Germanen am Scliwarzen
of the Euxine, through the territory Meere, 22 sqq. They are confused
of the Bulgarians and Kotrigurs, was by Tomaschek, Die Goten in Taiirien,
a unique event. John of Ephesus 12.

{ib,) says that Mugel and his followers ^ A name for Taman, TTnutarakaii,
fled to another country in fear of the which occurs in old Russian sources
Emperor. and is evidently of Arabic or Turkish

2 To ’AXoj'o-rou ko.1 to €v Top^ov^Lrats. origin, supplied VasiFevski with an

Procopius, Aed. iii. 7. 11. In this ingenious interpretation of Tetraxite,
passage Procopius clearly alludes to which is approved by Loewe (o^j. cit
the events of 528. The waUs of 33-34). He explains T’mutarakan as
Cherson had been strengthened in the derived from rd Marpaxa"^, wLich he
reign of Zeno, G.I.G. iv. 8621. Pro- identifies with r6 Taadra/-*xa (in Con-
copius {B.G, iv. 5. 28) curiously de- stantine Porph. De adm. im-j). e. 42),
scribes Phanagoria as near Cherson from which he gets TVerpa^Txat* as a
and still subject to the Romans. name of the inhabitants, and hence

3 They w^ere Christians, and perhaps Terpa^Lrai (the coiTUptioii being in-
they had a bishop at as early a date fluenced by rerpa^os). Loew^e tliinks
as the Council of Meaea (Mansi, ii. that the Tetraxites were Heruis.

696 provinciae Gothiae. TheopMlus ^ They supplied 2000 soldiers to
Gothiae metropolis). If this, is so, the expedition of the Utigurs against
they must have been distinct from the Kotrigurs in 551. Procopius,
the Ostrogoth of Hermanric. The B.G. iv. 18. 22.

THE CRIMEA

313

stretched from the Don as far south as the Hypanis, They
engaged, however, in secret diplomacy with Justinian. Their
bishop had died, and (a.d. 548) they sent envoys to Constanti-
nople to ask the Emperor to provide a successor. This was the
ostensible object of the embassy, and nothing else was mentioned
in the official audience, for they were afraid of the Utigurs ;
but they had a secret interview with the Emperor, at whicli
they gave him useful information for the purpose of stirring up
strife among the Hims.^

To the south of the Utigurs, in the inland regions north of
the Caucasian range, were the lands of the Alans, traditionally
friends of the Romans, and further east the Sabirs, whose rela-
tions to the Empire have come before us in connexion wdth the
Persian wars. On the coast south of the Hypanis, the Ziclis,
whose king used in old days to be nominated by the Emperor,
were accounted of small importance.^ But their southern
neighbours, the Abasgians and the Apsilians, came, as wm have
already seen, within the sphere of political intrigue and military
operations by which Rome and Persia fought for the control of
Colchis. On the Abasgian coast the Romans had two fortresses,
Sebastopolis (formerly called Dioscurias) and Pityus. On hearing
that Chosroes intended to send an army to seize these places,
Justinian ordered the garrisons to demolish the fortifications,
burn the houses, and withdraw. But he afterwards rebuilt

^ Procopius, B.Q. iv. 4. 9-13. Of 548, and 563. This stone is discussed
tiieir religion he says : “ I cannot by Latyshev, Viz. Vrem. i. 657 sqq.,
say whether they wvere once Arians, who decided for 533 ; by Kuiakovski,
like the other Gothic peoples, or held ib. 2. 189 sqq., who argued for 548
some other creed, for they do not (but he is now doubtful, Pamiatnih,
know themselves, but now they p. 10, n. 1); and by Semenov, B.Z.
adhere with simple sincerity to the vi. 387 wdio denies that the year
(orthodox) rehgion” Kal can be fixed.

aTrpayixocfi^vri iroW^ TLfiwdL t^v ^ In Ms account of these regions

I cannot find in Procopius (ib. iw. 5) in B.Q. iv. 4, Procopius places the
the statement, ascribed to him by Saginae apparently to the north of
Loew'e, that the Tetraxites lived in the Zichs, though one might infer
the Crimea before they settled in the from another passage, ib. 2. 16, that
Taman peninsula. It is to be noticed they were nearer to Colchis. He
that the old Greek town of Phan- also mentions the Bruchoi as dwelling
agoria, oi)posito to Bosporus, was in between the Alans and Abasgians.
their hands, and was probably the The Sunitae w'-ere also neighbours of
headquarters of their ecclesiastics, the Alans, B.P. i. 15. 1. See also
An inscription found at Taman, and if. ii. 29. 15. It is difhcult to
doubtless brought there from Phan- identify all the names of the tribes
agoria, relates to the restoration of a enumerated as living north of Abasgia
church under the auspices of Justinian, in the table of peoples in Zacharias
It is dated to an eleventh indiction, Myt. xii. 7, p. 328 (the Kotrigurs
which gives three possible dates, 533, appear as Khortlirigor).

314 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Sebastopolis on a scale wortby of bis reputation as a great
builder.^ Tbe fact tliat he thought it worth while to maintain
this outpost shows how considerable were the political and com-
mercial interests of the Empire in this region.

§ 6. The Avars

One of the disadvantages of the system of subsidising the
barbarians on the frontiers or endowing them with territory
was that fresh and formidable enemies were lured to the Roman
borders from remote wilds and wastes by the hope of similar
benefits. Towards the end of Justinian’s reign, a new people
of Hunnic race appeared on the frontier of Europe, north of the
Caspian, and immediately fixed their covetous desires on the
Empire, whose wealth and resources were probably exaggerated
far beyond the truth among the barbarian tribes. They called
themselves Avars, though it is alleged that they had usurped
the name of another people better than themselves ; ^ but they
were destined to play a part on the European scene similar, if
on a sni'aller scale, to that which had been played by the Huns.

Their westward migration was undoubtedly due to the revolu-
tion in Central Asia, Vv hich, about the middle of the sixth century,
overthrew the power of the Zhu-zhu ^ and set in their place the
Turks, who had been their despised vassals. Tu-men was the
name of the leader who rose against his masters and founded
the empire of the Turks. His successor, Mo-kan (a.o. 653--572),
overthrew the kingdom of the Ephthalites and organised the
vast Turkish empire which extended from China to the Caspian
and southwards to the borders of Persia, dividing it into two
khanates, of which the western was subordinate to the eastern.^

^ Procopius, B,G. iv. 4-6 ; and 431 sqq., and A Tlioiisaml Years of
Aed. iii, 7. 8-9, the Tartars, 1890 ; Maru^iurfc, His-

2 Cp. Thcophylactus Simocatta, torische Glossen zii den dltturklsclien

Hist. vii. 7 ; Bury, App. 5 to Gibbon, Inschriften, in Wiener Ztltsckrijt f.
voi. V. die Kunde des Morgenlandes, xiL

3 See above, ciiap. iii. § 3. The 157 sqq., 1898). The iater history

Zhu-zhu are sui^posed to have been of the Turks and their institutions
the true and original “ Avars.” (seventh and eightii centuries) have

^ See Bury, Appendix 17 to Gibbon, been illustrated “by the Turkish in-
voL iv. The scanty information sup- scriptions discovered in Eastern Mon-
plied by Greek sources about the goiia (Thomsen, Inscriptions de VOr-
early Turkish Eniphe must be sup- hhon dechi jjrces, 1894 ; Radlolf, Die
plemented by Cliinese records (cp. aUdurhiscken Inschriften der Monqolei,
E. H. Parker’s article in H.ILB, xi, 1895 (NeueFoIge), 1897 (ZweiteEolge),

THE AVARS

:SiS:

In A.D. 558 Justin, the son of Germanus, who was command-
ing the forces, in, Colchis,, received a message from Sams, ,„Mng of
the Alans, to the effect that Candich, king of the Avars, desired
to enter into communications with the Emperor. Justin in-
formed his cousin, who signified his readiness to receive an
embassy. The envoys of Candich arrived at Constantinople.
They vaunted the invincibility of the Avars and made large
demands— land, gifts, annual subsidies. Justinian, having con-
sulted the Imperial Council, gave them handsome gifts, couches,
clothes, and gold chains, and sent an ambassador to Candich,
who was informed that the Emperor might take his requests
into consideration, if the Avars proved their worth by subduing
his enemies. The Avars immediately made war upon the Sabirs
and destroyed them, and fought with success against the Utigurs.
Having cleared the way, they advanced through Kotrigur
territory to the regions of the Bug and Seret, subjugated the
Antae, and in A.n. 562 they made a great raid through Central
Europe, appeared on the Elbe, and threatened the eastern
marches of the Frank kingdom of Austrasia. But all these
expeditions seem to have been carried out from their head-
quarters, somewhere between the Caspian and the Black Sea,^

In the same year Baian, who had succeeded Candich and
was afterwards to prove himself the Attila of the Avars, sent
an embassy to Constantinople, demanding land in a Eoman
province. The ambassadors travelled by Colchis, and Justin,
who arranged for their journey to the capital, gained the con-
fidence of one of the party and was secretly informed by him
that treachery was intended. He therefore advised Justinian
to detain the barbarians as long as possible, since the Avars
would not carry out their purpose of crossing the Danube till
the envoys had departed. The Emperor acted on this advice,
and Bonus, the Quaestor of Moesia and Scythia, was instructed

1899; Alarqiiart, oj). cit, and Die Safarik {Slaw. Altertumer, ii. 60)
Ohronologie der alt-turh. and Maiuiiarfc 147)

1898. Mokan may almost certainly be refer to the iiiFasion of 562. The
identified with Silzibulos in Menander, comments of Alarqnart {Clironologie,
^ Meiiaiider, I>e leg. gent, frs. 1‘1Z ; IB sqq.) on Menander, //•. 3, based
John Eph. H.E. Part III. vi. 24 ; on the theory that the Antae at this
Gregory of Tours, HisL. Tr, iv. 23. time exercised ovorlordship over the
Cp. also Pseudo-Nestor, Ghron, c. 8 Bulgarians, are very hazardous. John
(p. 6, ed. Mildovich), on the subjuga- Eph. {ib. ep. hi. 25) says the Avars
tion of the Slavonic Budlehians of so called from wearing their
Volkynia by the Avars (Obre), which hair long.

316

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

to see to tlie defences of the river. ^ The policy succeeded,
though we do not know exactly why ; the Avars did not attempt
to invade the Empire ; and the envoys were at last dismissed.
They received the usual gifts, which they employed in buying
clothes and arms before they left Constantinople. The arms
must have been furnished by the Imperial factories, and the
Emperor apparently did not consider it politic to refuse to sell
them. But he sent secret instructions to Justin to take the
arms away from the barbarians when they arrived in Colchis.
Justin obeyed, and this act is said to have been the beginning
of enmity between the Komans and the Avars. Justinian did
not live to see the sequel. But he had not been long in his
grave before Baian led his people to the Danube, where they
secured a permanent abode and were a scourge to the Balkan
provinces for nearly sixty years.

Roman Commerce

^ In the efforts of the Imperial government to extend its
influence in the Eed Sea sphere, the interests of trade were the
principal consideration. Before we examine the fragmentary
and obscure record of Eoman intervention in the affairs of
Ethiopia and Southern Arabia, we may survey the commercial
activities of the Empire abroad.

' The trade of the Mediterranean was almost entirely in the
hands of Syrians and Greeks. In Rome and Naples and Carthage,
and not only in Marseilles and Bordeaux, but also in the chief
inland cities of Gaul, we find settlements of oriental merchants.’^
Their ships conveyed to the west garments of silk and wrought
linen from the factories of Tyre and Beryti^s, purple from Caesarea
and Neapolis, pistachios from Damascus, the strong wines of
Gaza and Ascalon, papyrus from Egypt, furs from Cappadocia.^

^ Menander, ih. fr. 4. Bonus is which was translated from the Greelc
described as TrpcoroffrdrTjs rod OrjnKoO soon after 345. Sidoniiis {Gann, 17.
Kal oiK€TLKod. Hc liad been appointed 15) speaks of the vina Gazetica, cp.
quaestor exercitus of the Five Provinces Cassiodorus, Far. 12. 5 ; Greg, of
(see below, p. 340) in 53(3 [Nov. 41). Tours, IlisL Fr. vii, 29. Among the

2 Cp. the article of Brehier, Les exports from Spain, the Exposiiio
Colonies Torientwux en Occident, B.Z. enumerates oil, bacon, cloth, and
xii. 1 sqq. (1903). On commerce in mules ; from Africa, oil, cattle, and
general in the sixth century see Heyd, clothing. On the multitude of Syrian
Hist, du commerce, i. pp. 1-24. merchants in Gaul cp. Salvian, He gab.

® See the FxposUio totius mundit Dei, iv. 14.

ROMAN COMMERCE

317

There was a large demand for embroidered stuffs, especially for
ecclesiastical use, cloths for altars, curtains for churches.^ But
the great centre to which the ships from all quarters converged
was the Imperial capital,- as the' richest and most populous city
of the world.^ It seems probable that most of the imports
which the Empire received from the countries bordering on the
Euxine came directly across its waters to Constantinople and
were distributed from there : the skins which the Huns exchanged
at Cherson for stuffs and jewels,^ and the slaves, skins, corn,
salt, wine, which were obtained from Lazica.

For the Empire trade with the East had always been mainly
a trade in imports. The East supplied the Mediterranean
peoples with many products which they could not do without,
wEile they had themselves less produce to offer that was greatly
desired by the orientals. There had, from of old, been a certain
market in China for glass, enamelled work, and fine stuffs from
Syria ; ^ but whatever exports found their way thither or to
India and Arabia were far from being a set-off to the supplies
of silk, not to speak of spices, precious stones, and other things
which the East sent to the West. The balance of trade was,
therefore, decidedly against the Empire, and there was a constant
drain of gold to the East.®

Under the early Eoman Empire, the trade with India, the
Persian Gulf, Arabia, and the eastern coast of Africa had been

^ 0]^. the document of a.d. 471
given by Duchesne, Lib. jpont. i.
cxlvii. Wealthy private persons also
obtained from the East the artistic
tapestries which they needed for the
adornment of their houses, Idie that
embroidered witli hunting - scenes
■which is described by Sidonius,
ix. 13. On figured textiles see Dalton,
Byz. Aft, 577 sqq.

“ Pauliis Silentiarius {8. Sophia^
232) makes Constantinople say :

cig e/jie tfioprlg arracra (fyepecrpcou eXiriSo, retVet
kvkXlot ticropowora Bpop-ov ttdvixdouog apKrov.

3 Jordanes, Get. 37 ; cp. Procopius,
B,G. iv. 20, 17.

Sec Hirtli, China and the Moman
Orient. M. Khvostov’s Eussian work,
Jstoriia vostocJmoi torgovli Greko-
riviskago Bgipta, is indispensable for

eastern trade doTO to the end of the
third century.

® We have no figures bearing on
the amount of the trade except those
furnished by Pliny in the first century.
He says that India received annually
from tlie Empii’e 55 million sesterces
(c. £600,000), and that China, India,
and Arabia together took at least 100
million sesterces (o. £1,000,000) ; Nat.
Eist. vi. 23, § 101, and xii. 18, § 84.
If these sums rexiiresented the whole
value of the imports, the volume of
trade would have been small ; but it
probably only means the balance of
trade — the amount of si)ecie which
was taken from the Enijiire ; and to
know the value of the imports, we
should have also to know the amount
of the exports which partly paid for
them. So Hirth, ib. j). 227, and
Khvostov, op. cit. jp* 410, inclines to
this view.

318 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

in tlie hands of Roman merchants, who sailed through the Red
Sea and the Indian Ocean in their own vessels. Before the end
of the third century this direct commerce seems to have ceased
almost entirely. The trade between the Mediterranean and
the East passed into the hands of intermediaries, the Persians,
the Abyssinians, and the Himyarites of Yemen. This change may
have been due to the anarchical conditions of the Empire, which
followed on the death of Alexander Severus and were unfavourable
to commercial enterprise. The energy of Persian merchants,
under the orderly rule of the Sassanids, secured a monopoly
of the silk trade, and the products of India were conveyed by
Abyssinian traders to their own market at Adiilis, or even to
the Roman ports on the isthmus, Glysma (Suez)^ and Aila.
The Red Sea trade itself seems to have been gradually abandoned,
as time went on, to the Abyssinians and Himyarites, who grew
more powerful and important as their commercial profits in-
creased. The Abyssinians— as we may conveniently call the
Ethiopians of the kingdom of Axum, from which modern
Abyssinia descends — also profited by the disuse of the Nile as
a trade route with East-Central Africa. The products of those
regions (slaves, ivory, ebony, gold, gems, ochre, etc.) had come
to Egypt by the Nile, as well as by the Red Sea, in the old days
when the Ethiopic kingdom of Meroe flourished. Meroe declined
in the second century, and in the third its organisation fell to
pieces, and the Upper Nile, under the control of the barbarous
Nubians and Blemmyes, became impracticable as a road for trade.
With the sliifting of power from Meroe to Axum, Bast African
commerce passed entirely into the hands of the Abyssinians.^

1 Clysina is Qulzum, a €j[iiarter of order of the Emperor. India, of
a mile north of Suez. This is shown course, must mean Ethiopia. The
by its description in the account of most iiui^ortant duty of this office
her pilgrimage to Sinai by the Abbess was to see that the regulations as
Aetheria (of South Gaul), who trav- to exports were observecf (cp- 0, Th.
elled in the early years of Justinian’s vi. 29, 8).

reign (between 533 and 540), accord- ^ Khvostov, op, cit. 29 sqq. For
ing to K. Meister in Jl-ifs,, N.F., the early trade of Roman Egypt

ixiv. 337 sqq. (1909), and Momm- with the East see also lilommsen,
sen. Hist. ScJi. hi. 610 sqq., but Rom. Gesch. v. chap. xii. It is to
according to others hi the last years be observed that the cessation of
of the fourth century (see E. Weigand, direct trade with the East was
B.Z. XX. 1 sqq., 1912). She saw reflected in tlie decline of geograpliieal
many large ships there, and mentions knowledge, illustrated by tlie misuse
that tliere was a resident agens in of India to designate Ethiopia, which
rehis, known as a logothete, who is frequent in Greek and Latin writers
used to visit India every year by from the fourth century.

ROMAN COMMERCE

319

As to the traffic with India, we find much curious in-
formation in a remarkable hook which was written about
the middle of the sixth century, Ghfistian CQsmogmRhy
of Gosmast

Gosmas, wdio is known as Indicopleustes, sailor of the
Indian Sea,’’ was an Egyptian merchant, but when he wrote his
book he had probably abandoned his calling and become a
monk. The Oosmography, which was composed about A.n.
645-550,^ is unfortunately neither a treatise on geography like
Strabo’s or Ptolemy’s, nor a plain account of his travels, but
a theological work, designed to explain the true shape of the
universe as proved by Scripture, and especially to refute the
error of pagan science that the earth is spherical. His theory
as to the shape of the world, which is based on the hypothesis
that Moses, ‘‘the great cosmographer,” intended his tabernacle
to be a miniature model of the universe, is not devoid of interest
as an example of the fantastic speculations to which the
interpretation of the Biblical documents as literally inspired
inevitably leads.

The earth, according to Gosmas, is a flat rectangle, and its
length is double its breadth. The heavens form a second story,
w- elded to the extremities of the earth by four walls. The dry
land which w^e inhabit is surrounded by the ocean, and beyond
it is another land where men lived before the Deluge. The
firmament is the ceiling betw^een the two stories, and the earth,
the lower story, lies at the bottom of the universe, to wdiich
it sank when it was created. There is nothing below it. Hence
the pagan theory of the antipodes is a delusion. On its western
side the earth rises into a great conical mountain, which hides

^ Books i.-v. appeared first, and Justinian’s death {ib. p. 159 ; cp*
vi,-x. were separately added . to H.E. Part II. p. 248). These indica-
answer objections and supjdy addi- tions give the limits 536 and 565.
tional exx>lanations. The chrono- (3) It is stated in vi. x>* 232 that a
logical indications are as follows : (1) solar and a lunar cciix:)se, which
Timothy, Patriarch of Alexandria, occurred in the same year, on Meeheri
who died in 535, is described as pvv 12 and Mesori 14, liad been predicted.
TeT€X€vrriKu)s, X. p. 315. (2) Theo- Two such eclipses did occur on

dosius of Alexandria is still alive at February 6 and August 17 in 547.
Constantinople, ib. p. 314. Thco- Hence Book vi. was written after
dosius wa,B coniined, after his deposi- 547. (4) Book ii. was written (p.

tion in 530, in the Thracian fort of 72) twenty-five years after the Him-
Derkos (J(diu Eph. Comm, de B. Or., yarite expedition ol; Elesboas, which
p. 14), but afterwards lived under occurred at the l>eginning of the
Theodora’s protection at Constanti- reign of Justin.” This implies about
noi)le, where he died soon after 644-545 for Books i.-v.

320

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the sun at night. The sun is not larger than the earth, as the
pagans falsely imagine, but much smaller. The revolutions of
all the celestial bodies are guided by angel pilots.^

It would be a mistake to suppose that this strange recon-
struction of the world, which contemptuously set aside all that
Greek science had achieved, represented the current views of
orthodox Christians or ever obtained any general credence.
It was not indeed original Cosmas derived his conceptions
from hints which had been thrown out by theologians of the
Syrian school, especially from .Theodore of Mopsuestia.^ But
for us the value of the work lies in the scraps of information
relating to his ovm travels which the author introduces incident-
ally, and in the contents of an appendix, which has no relation
to his theme, and seems to have been part of another wvu’k of
Cosmas, and to have been attached to the Cosmography by
some injudicious editor.^

Cosmas knew the Red Sea well. He visited Ethiopia in the
reign of Justin,^ and he made at least one voyage to the Persian
Gulf.^ It is to this voyage that he probably referred when he
wrote: “I sailed along the coast of the island of Dioscorides
(Socotra), but did not land, though in Ethiopia I met some of.
its Greek-speaking inhabitants.” ® The Persian Gulf probably
represents the limit of his eastern travel, for in all that he tells
of Ceylon and India we are struck by the absence of any of those
personal touches which could not fail to appear in the descrip-
tions of an eye-witness. It was only a rare Roman merchant

^ The extension of the worli of
creation over six days — whereas it
could have been accomplished hy a
single hat — is ingeniously explained
as due to the .Creator’s wish to give
a series of object-lessons to the
angels, iii. p. lOo sqq.

^ Cosmas was a Nestorian. Cp.
M'Crindle, hiirod. to his translation,
j). ix.

3 Books xi. and xii., of which the
latter is a series of fragments. He
had written a general geography
which is lost (Prologue^ acl init), but
it has been suggested that Book xi.
formed part of it (Winstedt, Introd,
p. 5).

^ ii. p. 72.

® He says that he had sailed in the
Persian, Arabian, and Eoman Gulfs

(the Roman means the Mediterranean),
ih, p. 62, where he rciates that “ once
having sailed to Inner India and
crossed a little towards Barbaria —
where fartlicr on is situated Zingion,
as they call the mouth of the Ocean
— ^we saw a flight of albatrosses
(suspha).” Inner India is either
South Arabia or Abyssinia, though in
the same passage Ceylon is said to
be in Inner India (if Inner is not an
error for Outer). Barbaria is the
African coast south of Abyssinia, and
Zingion is Zanzibar.

® iii. p. 119. There were Christian
clergy here who received ordination
from Persia. Cosmas also mentions
that there were Christian churches in
Ceylon, j\Iala (Malabar), and Caliiana
(near Bombay) under a bishop
ordained in Persia.

ROMAN COMMERCE

321

who visited the markets of Ceylon.^ The trade iDetween the
Red Sea and India was entirely in the hands of the Abyssinians,
and the Roman merchants dealt with them.

: 'Ceylon, which the ancients Iniew as Taprobane,^' was the great
centre of maritime commerce between the Far East and the
West. Ill its ports congregated Persian, Ethiopian, and Indian
merchants. Silk was brought from China to its markets, and
continental India sent her products : Malabar, pepper ; Calliana,
copper ; Sindu, musk and castor.^ The islanders exported their
own products eastward and westward, and they had a merchant
service themselves, but the significance of Ceylon was its position
as an emporium for merchandise in transit. The Persians had
an advantage over the Romans in that they traded directly
with the island, and had a commercial colony there, ^ while the
Roman trade, as we have seen, was carried on through the
Ethiopians and intermediaries.

While it is probable that most of the Indian commodities
which were consumed in the Empire travelled by this route, the
Ethiopian traders did not carry silk. The large suppMes of
silk which reached the Romans were bought from Persian
merchants, and most of it was probably conveyed overland from
China to Persia, though part of it may also have come by sea,
by way of Ceylon and the Persian Gulf. We do not know by
what methods the Persians succeeded in establishing this mono-
poly and preventing the Abyssinians from trading in silk. It
wms highly inconvenient to the Empire to depend exclusively
on a pohtical rival for a product of which the consumption was
immense, and in time of war the inconvenience was grave.
Justinian deemed it a matter of the first importance to break
the Persian monopoly, and for this purpose, during the first
Persian War, he entered: into negotiations with the king of
Abyssinia,

^ Cosmas knew one. See below, report to Marco Polo (ill 14), who
p. 332. calls it a ruby. It is siixn^osed by

-Cosmas also calls it Sielediya some to be an amethyst. Cosmas,
(from which comes the modern Arabic xi 821 sqq.

Serendib). He tells us that there ® Sindu has been identified with
were two kings in the island, and Biul-Sind, at the mouth of the Indus,
there were many temples, on the China in Cosmas is l\(*»dcrra. He says
top of one of which (perhaps the that from there and other emporia
Buddhist temple of Anarajapura) (probably Further India) Ceylon
shone a red stone, large as the cone receives silk, aloes [a\oi]v), cfoves
of a pine, which Cosmas calls a (/^apua^aXXa), sandalwood [r^avddvav).
hyacinth. This stone was known by ^ xi. p. 322.

VOL. TT

322 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

§ 8. The Abyssinians mid

The kingdoiii of the Abyssinians or Ethiopians, who were
also known as the Axiimites, from the name of their capital city
Axnm, approached Suakim on the north, stretched west’wa.rds
to the valley of the Nile, and southwards to the Spniali coast.
Their port of Adiilis was reckoned as a journey of fifteen days
from Axum where the king resided^ Eoinan inerchants fre-
quented Adulis, where there was a great market of the products
of Africa, slaves, spices, papyrus, ivory, and gold from Sasii.‘^

The commercial relations of the Abyssinians with their
neighbours across the straits, the Himyarites of Yemen, were
naturally close, and from time to time they sought to obtain
political control over South-western Arabia. Christian mission-
aries had been at work in both countries since the reign of
Constantins IL, when an Arian named Theophilus was appointed
bishop of the new churches in Abyssinia, Yemen, and the island
of Socotra.^ He is said to have founded churches at Safar
and Aden.^ After this we lose sight of these countries for about
a century and a half, during which Christianity probably made
little way in either country, and Judaism established itself
firmly in Yemen. Then we learn that in the reign of Anastasius
a bishop was sent to the Himyarites.^ We may conjecture that
this step was the consequence of a war between the Himyarites
and Abyssinians, which is misdated in our records, but apparently
belongs to the reign of Zeno or of Anastasius.^

^ So Nonnosiis, who had made the nasius, had been the first bishop in
journey {F.H.G. iv. 179). Procopius Abyssinia. Athanasius {Apologia ad
says 12. We first hear of this 31) quotes a ietter f.r()m

Ethiopian kingdom in the FeripMs Constantdus to the Ethiopian kings,
maris Erijthraei, § 2 sqg, (Geogr. Aizan and Sazan, asking them Jo

Mhiorea, vol, L), i,e. in the first send back l^Vumentiiis as a heretic,
century a.d. Its history has been (An inscription of this Aizan is
elucidated by Billmann in his articles preserved, G.I.G. iii. 5128, wlierc he
in Abh. BeHhier AIcad,t 1878 and appears as sole king, but his brother
1880. Saiazan is mentioned.) The mission

2 The Ethiopians gave meat, salt, of Theophilus is recorded by Philo -
and iron in exchange for the gold storgius, iii. 4-6.

they got from 8asu, Cosmas, ii. p. 70. ^ Td<papQv, \\.odi>r}.

The mention of iron is to be noticed ® Theodore Lector, ii. 58 (his source
in view of what Procopius says, B,P. was John Biakrinomenos).
i. 19. 25 : the Ethiopians have no , ® The events connected with the

iron ; they cannot buy it from the names of Amias and Bimnos are
Romans, for it is expressly forbidden related by John Wal. (xviii. 433 and
bylaw. 429) to the reign of Justinian (a.d.

3 Frumentius, ordained by Atha- 529). But we know on unimpeach-

;xx

ABYSSINJANS AND HIMYARITES

Dimnos, king of tke Himyarites, who was probably a convert
to Judaism, massacred some Greek merchants, as a measure of
reprisal for alleged ill-treatment of Jews in the Eoman Empire.
Thereupon, presumably at direct instigation from Gonstantinople,
the Abyssinian king Aiidas invaded Yemen, put Dimnos to death,
and doubtless left a viceroy in the country with an Ethiopian
garrison. Andas had vowed that, if he were victorious, he would
embrace Christianity. He fulfilled his vow, and the Emperor sent
him a bishop from Alexandria. Andas %vas succeeded by Tazena,
whose inscriptions describe him as ^^King of Axum and Homer
and Eeidan and Saba and Salhen.” He also was converted
from paganism, and his son Elesboas, who "was on the throne at
the beginning of Justin’s reign, was probably brought up a
Christian.^

Ill the meantime a Himyarite leader, Dhu Novas, of Jewdsh
faith, succeeded in overjiowering the Ethiopian garrison, pro-
claimed himself king, and proceeded to persecute the Christians.^
It is not quite certain whether Elesboas immediately sent an
army to re-establish his authority (a. d. 519-520),^ but if he did
so, Dhu Novas recovered his power within the next two years

able authority that at that time the ” Ela Atzbelia is the Ethiopic name
names of the kings were respectively (Noideke, ib. 188). Of the Greeks,
Elesboas and Esimiphaios, and Eles- Cosmas gets nearest to it with his
boas had been on the throne since ’EXXar^TSdas, ii. p. 72 ; John Mai. has
the beginning of Justin’s reign. XX^e ’EXecr/Suas, Acta mart. Arethae, p. 721
must therefore suppose that John ’EXecr/3ds, Procopius On

Malalas, misunderstanding his author- his coins he was also called Chaleb
i^y, made a chronological mistake, and (see SchluDiberger in Mev. miniisni.
refer the episode to an earlier period. 1886, pi xix. XaX?//3 ^aa-LXebs vids
C‘p. Duchesne, Les Eglises separees, and this, his ‘Hhrone-name,”

316-317; Noldcke, Tabari, 175; Fell, appears in the Ethiopic version of
Die Christeriverjolgung in Eildarabien, the Acta mart Arethae, Op. Fell, ib.
in Z.D.M.G. xxxv. 19. The name Yi sqq.

W.v5as appears as ’A5d5 in Theophanes ® See the consolatory letter written
(a.m. 6035), and as Aidug in John by Jacob of Sarug (who died November
Eph. H.E. Part II., extract in 29, 521) to the Himyarite Christians,
Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. p. 359. It is edited by Guidi (see Bibliogr. 1. 2, B).
suijposed to correspond to Ela-Amida * Guidi (op), cit. pp. 476, 479) argues
in Ethiopic chronicles. for two expeditions against Dhu

1 Homer is Himyar ; Reidan has Novas, the earlier in 519. There is
been explained as—-- Safar, and Salhen a good deal to be said for this,
as the fortress of Ma’rib (Fell, ib. Cosmas witnessed the preparations of
27) ; Saba (Sheba) is familiar. For Ela Atzbeha “ at the beginning of
the inscriptions of Tazena see Dill- the reign of Justin ” (loc. cit.), and,
mann, Z.D.M.G. vii. 357 sqq. HuaH as Justin reigned only till 527, it
(i{/6f. p. 53) suggests that would have been a strange misuse

the Ethiopians had no ships and that of words to speak of 524 as the be-
thc Romans must have sui^piied them ginning of his reign. See above, p.
with transports for their expeditions 319, 1. Op. Mordtmann, J/.&

to Yemen. xxxv, 698,

324 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

and began systematically to exterminate the Christian com-
munities of southern Arabia, if they refused to renounce their
errors and embrace Judaism. Having killed all the Ethiopians
in the land, he marched with a large army against the fortified
town of Nejran, which was the headquarters of the Christians
(a.d. 523). The siege was long, but, when the king promised
that he would spare all the inhabitants, the place capitulated.
Dhii Novas, however, had no intention of keeping faith, and when
the Christians refused to apostatise, he massacred them to the
number of 280, among whom the most conspicuous was Harith,
the emir of the tribe of Harith ibn-Kaab. After having per-
formed this service to the Jewish faith, Dhu Novas despatched
envoys to Al-Mundhir of Hira, bearing a letter in which he
described his exploits, boasted that he had not left a Christian
in his land, and urged the Saracen emir to do likewise. When
the envoys arrived at Al-Mundhir’s camp at Eamla (January 20,
A.D. 524), Simeon Beth Arsham, the head of the Monophysites
of the Persian empire, happened to be there, having come on
the part of the Emperor Justin to negotiate peace with the
Saracens. Horrified by the news, Simeon immediately trans-
mitted it to Simeon, abbot of Gabula, asking him to arrange
that the Monophysites of Antioch, Tarsus, and other cities
should be informed of what had happened.^

It is possible that Justin and the Patriarch of Alexandria ^
despatched messengers to Axuni to incite the Abyssinians to
avenge the slaughtered Christians and suppress the t)rrant.
In any case Ela Atzbeha invaded Yemen with a great army
(a.I). 524-525), defeated and killed Dhu Novas, and set up in his

^ For these events the Syriac letter
of Simeon, which has been edited by
Oiiidi, and is generally recognised as
genuine, is the most authentic source.
Simeon, who was accompanied by
Mar Abram and Sergius, bishop of
Rosapha, had obtained further in-
formation as to the massacre when
he returned to Hira from Al-Miind-
hir’s camp. It has been conjectured
by Duchesne {op, cit. p. 325) that
Sergius was the author of the Marty-
rhim AretJiae cl sociorum which has
eoine down in Greek. John Psaltes,
in 524-525, composed a Greek hymn
on the martyrs, which was im-
mediately translated into Syriac by
Paul, bishop of Edessa (died October

30, 526), and his version is preserved
(Z,D,M.G. xxxL 400 sqq.)- speaks
not of 280, but of more tlian 200
martyrs. A verse in tiie Koran (Sura
85) is said to refer to the massacre :
‘‘ Cursed were the contrivers of the
pit, of fire supplied with fuel ; when
they sat round the same, and were
witnesses of vkat they did against
the true believers,”

^ So the Greek version of the Mart.
Arethae^ where a letter from Jnstin
(doubtless an hivention) is given.
I5ut as the xArmenian version contains
nothing of these negotiations, v-e have
no guarantee that they u'cre men-
tioned in the original Syriac work.
Cp. Duchesne, loc. cit.

XX ABYSSINIANS AND HIMYARITES 325

stead a Him 3 ra,rite Christian, whose name was Esimiphaios, as
tributary Idngd /

Such were the political relations of the two Red Sea kingdoms
when, in a.d. 531, Justinian sent Julian, m. agens in rehus, to
the courts of Ela Atzbeha and Esimiphaios.^^ The purpose of
the embassy was to win their co-operation against Persia in
different ways. Julian travelled to Adulis by sea, and had an
audience of Ela Atzbeha at Axum. The king stood on a four-
wheeled car harnessed to four elephants. He was naked, except
for a linen apron embroidered mth gold and straps set with pearls
over his stomach and shoulders.^ He wore gold bracelets and
held a gilt shield and two gilt lances. His councillors, who stood
round him, were armed, and flute-]3layers were performing. He
kissed the seal of the Emperor’s letter, and was amazed by the
rich gifts which Julian brought to him. He readily agreed to
ally himself with the Empire against Persia. The chief service
which the Abyssinians could render was to destroy the Persian
monopoly in the silk trade by acting as carriers of silk between
Ceylon and the Red Sea ports, a service which would also be
highly profitable to themselves.

The consent of Ela Atzbeha, as overlord of Yemen, must also
have been obtained to the proposals which Julian was instructed
to lay before Esimiphaios. The Arabians of Maad (Nejd) were
subject to the Himyarites, and their chieftain, Kais, who was a
notable warrior, had slain a kinsman of the king and had been
forced to flee into the desert. The plan of Justinian was to pro-
cure the pardon of Kais, in order that he, at the head of an army
of Himyarites and Maadites, might invade the Persian empire.

^ Procopius, B.P. i. 20. 1. {John
Mai. xviii. 457, says that the Mng of
the Axuinitos made Aiiganes, a man
of his OTO family, king of the
Himyarites.) A Himyarite inscrip-
tion found at Hisn-Gurab seems to
record these events. It commemor-
ates an A Iwssinian invasion, and the
defeat and death of the Himyarite
Jdng. The name of the man who
set it up was read as Es-Samaika,
but Fell has plausibly suggested that
the true reading may be ”Es-Samaifa,
which would correspond to ’Ecrt^i^aZos.
He does not, however, designate him-
self as king. The date is 640 of the
Himyarite era, which (if the theory

is correct) would be determined as
640 - 525= 115. See Z,DALG, 7, 473,
and 35, 36.

^ There are two sources fur this
embassy, Proeoj)ius, ib, 20. 9 sqq.^
and John Mai. loc, cit. (with the
additions of Theophanes, who has
placed it under a wu-oiig year, a.m.
6064= A.D. 571-572). It can be in-
ferred from the words of John Mai.
{(hs i^r}yi^<7aT0 6 at’ros that

Julian published an account of his
embassy, which was doubtless also
known to Procopius.

® Sxia<rTas dia fMapyapirOiv /cat KXa^ia
dva wivre (Joiin Mai. ib,).

326 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Altliough Julian was successful in liis negotiations and the
kings promised to do what was required, they were unable to
perforin their promises. For men of Yemen to attank Persia
meant long marches through the Arabian deserts, and the
Hiinyarites shrank from such a difficult enterprise. In Ceylon
the Abyssinian merchants were out-manoeuvred by the Persians,
who bought up all the cargoes of silk as soon as they arrived in
port.

It must have been soon after Julian’s embassy that a revolt
broke out in Yemen. Esimiphaios was dethroned and im-
prisoned, and a certain Abram, wko Avas originally the slave of
a Eomaii resident at Adulis, seized the power.^ It seems to
have been a revolt of the Ethiopian garrison, not of the natives,
and it is probable that Abram, who was a Christian, had
been appointed commander of the garrison by Ela Atzbeha
himself. Two expeditions were sent against Abram, but in
both the Abyssinians were decisively defeated, and Ela
Atzbeha then resigned himself to the recognition of Abram
as viceroy.

Of the subsequent mission of Nonnosus, whom Justinian sent
to Abyssinia, Yemen, and Maad, we only know that the am-
bassador on his journeys incurred many dangers from both men
and beasts. The father of Nonnosus, Abram, was employed on
similar business, and on two occasions conducted negotiations
with Kais, the Arab chief of Nejd. Kais sent his son Muaviah
as a hostage to Constantinople, and afterwards, having resigned
the chieftaincy to his brother, visited the Imperial capital himself
and was appointed phylarch of Palestine.^

^ ProeopiuSj ib, 3-8, who, as he down and refused to advance. Then
says, anticipates events subsequent a flock of birds came flying from the
to Julian’s embassy. According to sea with stoiies in their bills which
Mart Arethae and the Gregentius they dropped on the heads of the
documents (see below), which entirely troops. The legend is commemorated
ignore Esimiphaios, Abram was set in the Koran (Sura 105) : “ Hast

uj) as king immediately after the thou not seen how the Lord dealt
overthrow of Dhu Kovas. If Abram with the masters of the elephant ? ”
was commander of the resident

Abyssinian troops, the error is ^ fragments of the book of
explicable. — The name of Abrain or Nonnosus, preserved by Pliotius, are
Abraha was remembered in Arabic meagre and disappointing, and there
legend for liis expedition against are no chronoiogical indications
Meccy<. His purpose was to destroy {F.H.G. iv. 179). \\'e may conjecture

theKaba. He was riding an elephant that Abram was of Saracen race and
called Eahmud, and "when, he ap- that both he and Nonnosus could
preached the city the animal knelt speak Arabic.

XX ABYSSINIANS AND HIMYARITES 327

Historians and chroniclers tell us nothing of the revival of
the Christian comniiinities in the kingdom of the Himyarites
after the fall of their persecutor Dhu Novas. There are other
documents, however, which record the appointment of a bishop
and describe his actraties in Yemen. According to this tradition,
Gregentiiis of Ulpiana was sent from Alexandria as bishop of
Safar in the reign of Justin. He held a public disputation on
the merits of Judaism and Christianity with a learned Jew and
utterly discomfited him ; and he drew up a Code of laws for
Abram king of the Himyarites. As some of the historical state-
ments in these documents are inconsistent with fact, the story
of Gregentiiis has been regarded with scepticism and even his
existence has been questioned.^ But there is no good reason to
suppose that the story does not rest on a genuine tradition which
was improved by legend and was' written down when the historical
details were forgotten. The Code of laws bears some internal
marks of genuineness, though we may hope, for the sake of the
Himyarites, that it was never enforced.^

^ All the interesting parts of the he proceeds to Safar, where he finds
Vita Gregentii, preserved in a Sinaitic Ela Atzbeha, and under his auspices
MS., have been pubiislied by Vasil’ev restores and founds churches at
{see Bibliography). The disinitation Nejran {'^eypd), Safar, Akana, and
with the Jew Tierbanus, which is Legmia. Before Ela Atzbeha re-
included in the is found by itself turned home (he had remained, d>s
in many MSS., and had already been ru'es, about three years in

edited (see Migne, F.G. Ixxxvi.). Ac- Yemen) he and Gregentius elevated
cording to the Life, Gregentius was Abram to the throne. In this narra-
born at Ulpiana in Dardania. It is tive Abram appears as the successor

significant that this city, which is of Bhu Novas ; Esimiphaios is

called, MTrXiapes (cp. the Slavonic entirely ignored ; and a Batiiarch of

name Lipljan), is described as iv rdis Alexandria, Proterius, is introduced

IxedopLOLs ’A/3d/)wi/ and reXoPo-a eh to who is never mentioned in any records

aurd tQiv ^A(3dpup suggesting that except in connexion with Gregentius.
the word was composed between 580 Another suspicious point has been
and 630. Gregentius travelled in noticed. Gregentius visits Agrigen-
Sicily, Italy, and Spain {KapTayiva)^ turn; the names of Ids parents are
and finally went to Alexandria Agapius and Theodote. Now there

rais 'npepcLL^ Aoverrivov /3a(rtXect)s ' Pw- exists the Life of a mysterious saint,
p,aUou icai ’EXeerpfoa/x iSacnXeo^s kWioirtav Gregory of Agrigentum, and his
Kailovi'au {Dlm^oras) ^cLO'LX^a)s'0^7)pY parents were Chariton (which has
tS)v Kal llporeplov TraTra much the same meaning as Agapius)

When the Ethiopian king overthrew and Theodote, while the name Gre-
Bhu Novas, he wrote to Proterius gentius itself suggests Agrigentuxir
asking him to ordain and send a (cp. VasiPev, p. 67). In the Greek
bishop to the Himyarites. Proterius and Slavonic Menaea and Synaxaria
consecrated the deacon Gregentius, Gregentius is noticed, sometimes
wdio travels apparently up the Nile and under the name of Gregory. See
reaches the capital city of the Ethio- 8ymx. eccl. Gplae. {A. AS. Ao?;.),p. 328.
piaiis, which is called ’A/.iXe;a. Thence ® Eor the Code see below, p. 413.

328 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE cpiap.

§ 9. The Nobadae and Blemyes

Tlie missionary zeal of Justinian and Theodora did not over-
look the peoples who lived on the Upper Nile between

Egypt and Abyssinia. ,We have already seen how the hostility
of the Bleinyes, whose seats were above the First Cataract, and
their southern neighbours the Nobadae, whose capital was at
Dongola, constantly troubled the upper provinces of Egypt.
The Nobadae and their king SiUco were converted to Christianity
about A.D. 540. The story of their conversion is curious.
Theodora was determined that they should learn the Monophysitic
doctrine; Justinian desired to make them Chalcedonians. In
this competition for the souls of the Nobadae, Theodora was
successful. The episode is thus related by a Monophysitic his-
torian : ^

Among the clergy in attendance on the Patriarch Theodosius was a
proselyte named Julianus, an old man of great worth, who conceived an
earnest spiiitual desire to christianise the wandering people who dwell on
the eastern borders of the Thebais beyond Egypt, and who are not only not
subject to the authority of the Eoman Empire, but even receive a subsidy
on condition that they do not enter nor pillage Egypt. The blessed
Julianus, therefore, being full of anxiety for this jDeople, went and spoke
about them to the late queen Theodora, in the hope of awakening in her
a similar desire for their conversion ; and as the queen was fervent in
zeal for God, she received the proposal with joy, and promised to do every-
thing in her power for the conversion of these tribes from the errors of
idolatry. In her joy, therefore, she informed the victorious King Jus-
tinian of the purposed imdertaking, and promised and anxiously desired
to send the blessed Julian thither. But when the Idng [Emperor] heard
that the person she intended to send was opposed to the council of Chal-
cedon, he was not pleased, and determined to write to the bishops of his
own side in the Thebais, with orders for them to proceed thither and in-
struct the Nobadae, and plant among them the name of synod. And as
he entered upon the matter with great zeal, he sent thither, without a
moment’s delay, ambassadors with gold and baptismal robes, and gifts of
honour for the king of that people, and letters for the duke of the Thebais,
enjoining him to take every care of the embassy and escort them to the
territories of the Nobadae. 'When, however, the queen learnt these
things, she quickly, with much cunning, wrote letters to the duke of the
Thebais, and sent a mandatory of her court to carry them to him ; and
which were as follows : “ Inasmuch as both his majesty and myself have
pui-posed to send an embassy to the people of the Nobadae, and I am now

^ John Ej3h. E.E. Part III. iv. the conversion of the Nobadae and
6-7. I have borrowed the version of Blemyes will be found in Duchesne,
Payne-Smith. A short account of op. cit. 287 sqq.

NOBADAE AND BLEMYES

329

despatching a blessed man named Julian ; and further my will is that my
ambassador should arrive at the aforesaid people before his majesty’s ; be
warned, that if you permit his ambassador to arrive there before mine, and
do not hinder him by various pretexts until mine shall have reached you
and shall have passed tlirough your province and arrived at his destination,
your life shall answer for it ; for I shall immediately send and take off your
head,” Soon after the receipt of this letter the king’s ambassador also
came, and the duke said to him, “ You must wait a little while we look
out and procure beasts of burden and men who Imow the deserts, and then
you will be able to proceed,” And thus he delayed him until the arri%’-al
of the merciful queen’s embassy, who fomid horses and guides in w^aiting,
and the same day, without loss of time, under a show of doing it by
violence, they laid hands upon him, and w^ere the first to proceed. As
for the duke, he made his excuses to the king’s ambassador, saying, Lo !
when I had made my preparations and was desirous of sending you onward,
ambassadors from the queen arrived and fell upon me with violence, and
took away the beasts of burden I had got ready, and have passed onward ;
and I am too •well acquainted wdth the fear in which the queen is held
to ventxH'e to oppose them. But abide still with me until l can make
fresh preparations for you, and then you also shall go in peace.” And
wfiien he heard these things he rent his garments, and threatened him
terribly and reviled him ; and after some time he also was able to proceed,
and followed the other’s track without being aware of the fraud which had
been practised upon him.

The blessed Julian meanwhile and the ambassadors who accompanied
him had arrived at the confines of the Nobadae, whence they sent to the
king and his princes informing him of their coming ; upon which an
armed escoi't set out, who received them joyfully, and brought them into
their land imto the king. And he too received them with pleasui’e, and
her majesty’s letter was presented and read to him, and the purport of it
explained. They accepted also the magnificent honours sent them, and
the numerous baptismal robes, and everything else richly provided for
theix’ use. And immediately with joy they yielded themselves up and
utterly abjured the errors of their forefathers, and confessed the God of the
Christians, saying, “ He is the one true God, and there is no other beside
Him.” And after Julian had given them much instruction, and taught
them, he further told them about the council of Chalcedon, saying that
“ inasmuch as certain disputes had sprung up among Christians touching
the faith, and the blessed Theodosius being required to receive the coimcil
and havmg refused was ejected by the long [Emperor] from his tlixone,
whereas the queen received him and rejoiced in him because he stood
firm in the right faith and left his throne for its sake, on this account
her majesty has sent us to you, that ye also may walk in the ways of
Pope Theodosius, and stand in his faith and imitate his constancy. And
moreover the king has sent unto you ambassadors, who are already on their
way, in our footsteps.”

Tlie Emperor’s emissaries arrived soon afterwards, and were
dismissed by Silko, wlio informed tbem that if his people embraced

330 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Christianity at all it would be the doctrine of the holy Theodosius
of Alexandria, and not the '' wicked faith” of the Emperor.
The story, which is told by one who admired the Empress and
lived under her protection, illustrates her imscrupulousness and
her power.

The Nobadae, converted to Christianity, immediately co-oper-
ated with the Empire in chastising the Blemyes and forcing them
to adopt the same faith. Roman troops under Narses made a
demonstration on the frontier of the Thebaid, but the main work
was done by Silko, who celebrated his victory by setting up an
inscription in the temple of the Blemyes at Talmis (Dodeka-
schoinos, now Kelabsheh). The boast of this petty potentate
might be appropriate in the mouth of Attila or of Tamurlane :
'' I do not allow my foes to rest in the shade but compel them
to remain in the full sunlight, with no one to bring them water
to their houses; I am a lion for the lands below, and a bear for
the lands above.” ^ The conversion of the Blemyes enabled
Justinian to abolish the scandal of the pagan worship at Philae,
which had been suffered to exist on account of an ancient con-
vention with that people.^ A Greek agent was appointed to
reside at Talmis and represent the Imperial authority.^

§ 10, The Silk Industry

'The efforts of Justinian and his Abyssinian friends to break
down the Persian monopoly of the silk trade had been frustrated
by the superior organisation of Persian mercantile interests in

^ Lefebvre, Eeciieil, 628, p. IIS ;
C.I.G, iii. 5072. He describes liim-
seif as e 7 d> 'LlKkCi (SaacXicrKO^

Kal 6\(x}v rCiv AWLoTTm', The Greek
who composed the inscription must
have smiled to himself when he in-
troduced the diminutive
“ kinglet.” Silko was succeeded by
Eirpanoinos (or Ergamenes). See
Bevillout, Memoire sur les Blenimyes,
in Acad, des Inscr. ser. 1, viii. 2. pp.
371 sqq. — Keferences to tiie hostilities
of the Blemyes in the sixth century
will be found in Faq). Cairo i. 67004,
67007, and 67009. Here we find
them plundering Omboi, and a pagan
subject of the Empire reopening
apparently a heathen temple for
them (67004).

^ See below, p. 371.

3 Cp. G.l.Q. iv. 8647-8649 (posterior
to Justinian’s reign). Three interest-
ing Greek inscriptions, found at
Gebelem, are discussed by J. Krall,
in Denlcsckr. of the Vienna Academy,
vol. xlvi. (1900). The princes of the
Blemyes, like those of the Nobadae,
were styled f3a(rL\i<rK0L by their Greek
notaries. In the first of these texts
(%vhich date probably from the time
of Anastasius or Justin) we find
Cliaraohen, j^acreXeiaKos tCp BAfyaew?/,
giving orders as to an island in the
Nile (perhaps near Gebclein), for
which the Romans (ot 'Pt6,aets) paid a
avvijdeta. See Wesseiy, Gr. Paq)yrus-
urh No, 132.

■XX':

THE SILK INDUSTRY

331

the markets of Ceylon. There was one other route by which
it might have been possible to import silk direct from China,
namely overland through Central Asia and north of the Caspian
Sea to Chersoii. This possibility was . no doubt, considered.
Justinian, however, does not seem to have made any attempt
to realise it, but it was to be one of the political objects of his
successor.,,;

After the outbreak of the war with Persia in a.d. 540, the
private silk factories of Eery tus and Tyre suffered severely.^
It must be explained that, in order to prevent the Persian traders
from taking advantage of competition to raise the price of silk,
all the raw material was purchased from them by the com-
merciarii of the fisc, who then sold to private enterprises all that
was not required by the public factories (gynaecia) which
ministered to the needs of the court.^ Justinian instructed the
cmnmerciarii not to pay more than 15 gold pieces (£9 : 7 : 6)
for a pound of silk, but he could not force the Persians to sell
at this price, and they preferred not to sell at all or at least
not to sell enough to serve the private as well as the public
factories. It is not clear whether hostilities entirely suspended
the trade, but at best they seriously embarrassed it, and as the
supplies dwindled the industrial houses of Tyre and Berytus
raised the prices of their manufactures. The Emperor inter-
vened and fixed 8 gold pieces a pound as the maximum price
of silk stuffs. The result was that many manufacturers were
ruined. Peter Barsymes, who was Count of the Sacred
Largesses in a.d. 542, took advantage of the crisis to make the
manufacture of silk a State monopoly, and some of the private
industries which had failed were converted into government
factories. This change created a new source of revenue for the
treasury,^

Chance came to the aid of Justinian ten years later and
solved the problem more effectively than he could have hoped.
Two monks, who had lived long in China or some adjacent

^ Procopius, H,A. 25. 13 sqq. mann. Die alten S(.ldev.^.i/‘assenf in

^ C.J. iv. 40. 2. The most im- Sieglins Forschimgen, Heft 21,
portant stiKly of the silk trade in

the sixth century is that of Xacharia ® Procopius, ih. The government
von Lingenthai, Bine Verordming sold silk stuffs with ordinary dye at
Jaatinkins uber den /SV/n/cTi-toideP in '6 nomismat^ an ounce, but the
Mern. de VAcad. de St-PeL, ser, vii. Imperial dye, called 6\6(3r}poi', at
voi. ix. 6. (See also a paper of Herr- more than 24 nom. an ounce.

332 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

country,^ visited Constantinople (a.d, 552) and explained to the
Emperor the whole process of the cultivation of silkworms.
Though the insect itself ’was too ephemeral to he carried a long
distance, they suggested that it would be possible to transport
eggs, and were convinced that they could be hatched in dung,
and that the worms could thrive on mulberry leaves in Europe
as successfully as in China. Justinian offered them large rewards
if they procured eggs and smuggled them to Constantinople.
They willingly undertook the adventure, and returned a second
time from the East with the precious eggs concealed in a hollow
cane. The worms were developed under their instructions,
Syria was covered with mulberry trees, and a new industry was
introduced into Europe. Years indeed must elapse before the
home-grown silk sufficed for the needs of the Empire, and in
the meantime importation through. Persia continued, and
Justinian’s successor attempted to open a new way of supply
with the help of the Turks.

If we regard Koman commerce as a whole, there is no doubt
that it prospered in the sixth century. Significant is the universal
credit and currency which the Imperial gold nomisma enjoyed,
Cosmas Indicopleustes, arguing that the Eoman Empire
participates in the dignity of Christ, transcending every other
power, and will remain unconquered till the final consummation,”
mentions as a proof of its eminent position that all nations from
one end of the earth to the other use the Imperial coinage in
their mercantile transactions.^ Illustrative anecdotes had been
told of old by merchants who visited Ceylon. Pliny relates that
a freedman who landed there exhibited Roman denarii to the
king, who was deeply impressed by the fact that all were of
equal weight though they bore the busts of different Emperors.^
Sopatros, a Eoman merchant who went to Ceylon in an Ethiopian
vessel in the reign of Zeno or Anastasius, told Cosmas ^ that he

^ Seriiida, supposed by some to be * Cosmas,iip. 8 L Coins of Arcadiiis
Khotan. Procopius (B.O. iv. 17) and Honorius, Theodosius II., JMarcian,
describes it as birkp Wvtj rd Leo I., Zeno, Anastasius and Justin

TToXXd. Possibly Cochin - China is 1. have been found in southern and
meant. The sources are Procopius, ib. western India ; of ]\larclan and i^co
(the order of whose narrative points in northern India. See Sewell,
to the year 552), and Theophanes of Coins found in India, Journal Asiat.
Byzantium, F.H.G. iv. p. 270, who > 800 , xxxvi, 620-635 (1904).
ascribes the importation to a Persian. .

^ Compare the treaty of 562 (above,
p. 121 ). " ® si. p, 323.

■XX'

THE SILK INDUSTRY

333

had an audience of the king along with a Persian who had arrived
at the same time. The king asked them, '' Which of your
monarchs is the greater 1 ’’ The Persian promptly replied,
Ours, he is the king of kings.” When Sopatros was silent,
the king said, “And you, Eoman, do you say nothing ? ”
Sopatros replied, “ If you would Imow the truth, both the Idngs
are here.” “What do you mean?” asked the king. “Here
you have their coins,” said Sopatros, “ the nomisma of the one
and the drachm of the other. Examine them.” The Persian
silver coin was good enough, but could not be compared to the
bright and sha];)ely gold piece. Though Sopatros was probably
appropriating to himself an ancient traveller's tale,^ it illustrates
the prestige of the Imperial mint.

The independent German kingdoms of the West still found
it to their interest to preserve the images and superscriptions
of the Emperors on their gold money. In the reign of Justinian
the Gallic coins of the Merovingian Franks have the Emperor's
bust and only the initials of the names of the Idngs.^ The
Suevians in Spain continued to reproduce the monetary types of
Honorius and Avitus. The last two Ostrogothic kings struck
Imperial coinage, only showing their hostility to Justinian by
substituting for his image and inscriptions those of Anastasius.^

^ So Winstedt rightly (his ed. of
Cosmas, p. 356).

^ Theodebert, as a sign of

defiance, substituted his own name
for that of Justinian, but left the
title PP Aug, This is what Proco-
pius refers to, B,G. iii. 33. 5. Here
he makes the curious statement that it
is not lau’ful for any barbarian

potentates, including the Persian
Iving, to stamp gold coins with their
own images, because eyen their own
merchants would not accept such
money.

® Wroth, Catalogue of Coins of the
Vandals^ etc.. Plates x. and xii., cp.
Introd. p. xxxviii. The rule did not
apply to silver and bronze coins.

CHAPTEE XXI

ADMINISTBATIVE REFORMS AHD FIKAHCE .

§ 1. xittempts to reform Abuses (a.d. 533-540)

The second Prefecture of John the Cappadocian (a.d. 533-540)
was marked by a series of reforms in the administration of the
Eastern provinces, and it would be interesting to know how far
he was responsible for instigating them. Administrative laws
affecting the provinces were probably, as a rule, evoked by reports
of the Praetorian Prefects calling attention to abuses or anomalies
and suggesting changes.^ If half of what the writers of the time
tell us of John’s character is true, we should not expect to find
him promoting legislation designed to relieve the lot of the
provincial taxpayers. But we observe that, while the legislator
is earnestly professing his sincere solicitude for the welfare of his
subjects, he always has his eye on the interests of the revenue,
and does not pretend to disguise it. The removal of abuses
which diminished the power of the subjects to pay the taxes
was in the interest of the treasury, and it was a capital blunder
of the fiscal administration of the later Empire that this obvious
truth was not kept steadily in view and made a governing
principle of policy. It was fitfully recognised when the excessive
burdens of the cultivators of the land led to an accumulation
of arrears and the danger of bankruptcy, or w-hen some glaring
abuse came to light. John, clever as he w^as, could not extract
money from an empty purse, and there is no reason to suppose
that he may not have promoted some of the remedial laws
which the Emperor directed him to administer.

^ For instance, Xov, 151 (a.d. 533- vinces coming to Constantinople on
534), intended to ciieck the practice litigation business, was due to a
of senators and officials in the pro- relatio of John Oapp,

CHAP. XXI ATTEMPTS TO REFORM ABUSES 335

We need not doubt that the Emperor was thoroiiglily sincere
when he asserts his own concern for the welfare of his
subjects, nor suspect him of hypocrisy when he expresses
indignation at the abuses which he strives to suppress. All
the capable Roman Emperors honestly desired a pure ad-
ministration and a contented people ; but their good intentions
were- frustrated by defects of the fiscal system which they had
inherited, and by the corruption of the vast army of officials
who administered it.

We do not know how far Justinian’s enactments may have
been successful, but they teach us the abuses which existed.
There was none perhaps which he himself regarded as more
important — if we may judge from his language — than the law
which forbade the practice of buying the post of a provincial
governor.^ Theodora, if she did not instigate the measure, had
taken a deep interest in it, and the Emperor also expressly
acknowledges that he had received some help from the Prefect.
It had long been the custom to require the payment of consider-
able sums {suffragia) from those who received appointments as
governors of provinces, and these sums went partly to the
Emperor, partly to the Praetorian Prefect. Men ■who aspired
to these posts were often obliged to borrow the money. The
official salary Avas not sufficient to recompense them for the
expense of obtaining the post, and they calculated on reimburs-
ing themselves by irregular means at the cost of the provincials.
The Emperor states that they used to extract from the taxpayers
three or even ten times the amount they had paid for the office,
and he shows how the system caused loss to the treasury, and
led to the sale of justice and to general demoralisation in the
provinces. The laAV abolishes the system of suffragia, Hence-
forAvard the governor must live on his salary, and AAdien he is
appointed he aauU only have to pay certain fixed fees for the
ensigns and diploma of his office.^ Before he enters on his post
he has to SAvear — the form of oath is prescribed — that he has
paid no man any money as a suffragium ; and seA^ere penalties

^ Nov. S (April 15, 535). Pro- ^ The fees {<Tvv7]0€La.t) for the higher
copius refers to this law {B.A. posts (like the comes Orientis, pro-
21. lO) and says that before a year consulof Asia) amounted to £122 : 10s.,
had passed Justinian disregarded it for the posts of consular rank £47 : 10s.,
and allowed the offices to be sold for those of praeses or corrector,
openly, about £39.

336 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

are provided if the Prefect or any of liis staff or any other person
should be convicted of having received such bribes. The
governor who has paid for his appointment or who receives
bribes during his administration is hable to exile, confiscation
of property, and corporal punishment. Justinian takes the
opportunity of exhorting his subjects to pay their taxes loyally,
inasmuch as the military preparations and the offensive
measures against the enemy which are now engaging us are
urgent and cannot be carried on without money; for we
cannot allow Eoman territory to be diminished, and having
recovered Africa from the Vandals, we have greater acquisitions
in view.’^, , ; . ' - ' ,

Several other laws were passed in this period to protect the
people from nial-administrationJ The confirmation of the old
rule that a governor should remain in his province for fifty days
after vacating his office, in order to answer any charges against
his actions, may specially be mentioned.^ The office of defensor
civitatis had become practically useless as a safeguard against
injustice because it had come to be filled by persons of no stand-
ing or influence, who could not assume an independent attitude
towards the governors. Justinian sought to restore its usefulness
by a reform which can hardly have been welcomed by the muni-
cipalities. He ordained that the leading citizens in each town
should fill the office for two years in rotation ; and he imposed on
the defensor, in addition to his former functions, the duty of decid-
ing lawsuits not involving more than 300 nomismata and of
judging in minor criminal cases. The work of the governor's court
was thus lightened. We may suspect that the bishops who were
authorised to intervene when a governor was sus|)ected of
injustice were more efficacious in defending the rights of the
provincials because they were more independent of the governor's
goodwill.^

Among the restrictions which the Eoman autocrats placed
upon the liberty of their subjects there is none perhaps that
would appear more intolerable to a modern freeman than those
which hindered freedom of movement. It was the desire of
the Emperors to keep the provincials in their own native places
and to discourage their changing their homes or visiting the

’ See Mdicts 2 and 12. ^ Nov. 95 (639) ; cp. Nov. 8, § 9.

® Nov. IS (536) ; Nov. 86 (539).

XXI

ATTEMPTS TO REFORM ABUSES

337

capital. This policy was dictated by requirements of the system
of taxation, and by the danger and inconvenience of increasing
the proletariat of Constantinople. Impoverished provincials had
played a great part in the Nika sedition, and the duties of the
Prefect of the City were rendered more difficult and onerous
by the arrival of multitudes of unemplo}^ed persons to seek a
living by beggary or crime. Justinian created a new ministry
of police for the special purpose of dealing with this problem^
The function of the quaesitor, as the minister was named, was
to inquire into the circumstances and business of all persons
who came from the provinces to take up their quarters in the
capital, to assist those who came for legitimate reasons to get
their business transacted quickly and speed them back to their
homes, ^ and to send back to the provinces those who had no
valid excuse for having left their native soil. He was also
empowered to deal with the unemployed class in the capital,
and to force those who were physically fit into the service of
some public industry (such as the bakeries), on pain of being
expelled from the city if they refused to work. Judicial functions
were also entrusted to him, and his court dealt with certain
classes of crime, for instance forgery.

The Prefect of the City was further relieved of a part of his
large responsibilities by the creation of another minister, who,
like the quaesitor, was both a judge and a chief of police. The
Praefectus Vigilum,^ who was subordinate to the Prefect, was
abolished, and his place was taken by an independent official

^ Nov. 80 (a.d. 539), addressed to he is wrong in supposing that Koiai-
the Pr. Prefect of the East, because o-trwp has no nianuscrixjt authority
it concerned the provincials as well in the Novel (see KrolFs ed. p. 391).
as the capital. The institution of The difficulty may easOy be solved,
the quaesitor is also mentioned by I think, by supposing that the duties
John Lyd. Be mag. ii. 29 {rbv mentioned by Procoiuus were sub-
XeyjjuLepov Kvaio-iropa dvrl Kjody ruiv sequently assigned to the quaesitor,
ISiwtlkCop eyKXrjjiidTixjp epevvdda ffspLvd- who was already empowered 80,
rarov), by John Mai. xviii. 479 (a.d. § 7) to try oases of forgery {irXacrro-

539-540), and by Procopius, H.A. ypa^la).

20. 9 and 11. The notice of Procopius ^ The business affairs, referred to
ignores the principal functions of the in the law, are chiefly lawsuits (cp.
quaesitor, and reiuesents him as con- 69), or the atfairs of agri-

ceriied vutli unnatural vice and cultural tenants whose landlords
offences against religion. Nothing is resided in the capital. Persons who
said of such duties in Nov. 80, and have once been dismissed from the
Panchenko (0 tain. ist. 213) therefore city by the quaesitor and return are
thinks that the quaesitor of Procopius liable to punishment (§ 9).
and John Lydus is a different official ® The Greek term was PUKriirapxos
from that of Nov. 80, \yhose title he ‘‘ night - prefect,” which Justinian
supposes to have been quaestor , But wastes many words in deriding.

338 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

who was named the Praetor of the Denies,^ and whose
most important duty was to catch and punish thieves and
robbers.

§ 2. Promncial Reorganisation

During the fifth centiiry few changes had been made in the
details of the provincial system as it was ordered by Diocletian
and modified here and there by his successors. Such alterations
as had been found ad^dsable were in accordance with the
principles which had inspired Diocletian’s reform. Provinces
were further subdivided, they were not enlarged. Theodosius
11. , for instance, broke up Epirus, Galatia, and Palestine, each
into two provinces.^ Changes had also been made in Egypt.
This diocese had at first consisted of five provinces, ilegyptus,
Augustamnica, Tliebais, and the two Libyas, but Theodosius I.
(after a.d. 486) cut off a part of Augustamnica (including the
Oxyrhynchus district) to form the province of Arcadia.® At some
later period Augustamnica was again divided into two provinces,
Prima and Secunda.^ But the principal innovation was made
by Theodosius 11. , who subdivided the Thebaid into the Upper
and the Lower provinces. The Upper or southern Thebaid was
constituted under a duke, to whom the civil as well as the
military administration was entrusted, along with a general
authority over the Lower Thebaid, which had its owm civil
governor.® The motive of this arrangement was to strengthen
the hands of the commander who was responsible for protecting
the frontier against the Blemyes and Nobadae. Yet another
alteration was made, perhaps early in the sixth century ;

^ WpaiTbip Nov. 13, A.D.

535 (John Mai. ib., gives a wrong date,
539) ; John Lyd. ib. ; Procopius, Ik
We can infer from the law that at
tliis time crime was particularly
prevalent in the capital ; and the
Praefectus Vigil um employed agents
who were in collusion with the
criminals. Procopius complains that
the Praetor and the Quaesitor w’-ere
arbitrary in administering justice,
condemning men without evidence,
and, in accordance with his thesis,
represents tliem as instituted for the
j)urposc of oppression and extortion.

2 John Mai. xiii. 347-348.

® Vof. dig., 0/\ i. 29, . See M.
Gelzcr, Stud. bgrj. JT/'iv. Acjyptens,
8-9.

^ Before a.d. 535 ( Hiei‘o(ies, Synckd.
726. 3^; 727. 13 ; Justinian, Nov. 8).

We hav'e a contemporary recor<l
of this change in an lm}}eiiai rescript
preserved in a Leiden ■|■)a})yrlls
{ArcJiiv fiir PnpyrvAbrseluLng, i. 397),
and discussed by Gelzer, ih. 10 sgq.,
who shows that the innovation must
be dated between 435 and 450. The
Upper Thebaid extended from Ptole-
mais to Omboi.

XXI PRO VINCI A L REORGA NISA TION 339

the province of Aegyptiis was divided into two, Prima and
Secunda.^" ^ :

A charge of a different kind, but based on the same principle
of dividing responsibility, had been introduced by Anastasiiis in
Thrace. IVhen lie constructed the Long Wall he established a
new vicariate, at the expense of the vicariate or diocese of Thrace.
We do not know its extent, or what powers the new official
possessed, but as he was entitled Vicar of the Long Walls ’’ his
diocese evidently stretched northwards from Constantinople.^

Justinian did not indeed attempt a complete revision of the
existing system, but he made a great number of changes in
which he departed from the principles of Diocletian. He com-
bined in some cases small provinces to form larger circumscrip-
tions ; he did aw^ay with most of the diocesan governors, who
formed the intermediate links in the hierarchical chain between
the provincial governors and the Praetorian Prefect ; and he
united in many cases the civil and military powers wbich had
been so strictly divorced by Diocletian. The tendency of these
changes anticipates to some extent the later system which was
to come into being in the seventh century and was characterised
by large provinces, the union of civil and military administration
in the same hands, and the total disaj)pearance of the dioceses.
The reforms of Justinian, which belong to the years 535 and
636, were called forth by particular circumstances. Some of
them were designed to avert conflicts betw^een the civil and
military authorities.

The Count of the East was deprived of his jurisdiction over
the Orient diocese and, retaining his title, rank, and emoluments,
became the civil governor of the province of Syria Prima. The
Vicariate of Asiana was likewise abolished, and the vicar became
the governor of Phrygia Pacatiana, exercising both civil and
military powers, and adorned with the new title of comes
lustinianns,^

Similarly the Vicariate of Pontica was abolished, the vicar
becoming the comes lustinianus of Galatia Prima. But this
arrangement was found to work badly, and at the end of thirteen

^ Nov, 8 (April 15, 535) ; in appended to Nov, S, and Nov, 26.
Hleroeles Egypt is still one province. That the vicariate was created by
The precise date of the notitia of Anastasius is not stated, but is a
H ieroclcs has not been fixed, natural inference.

-The sources are the notitiae ^ Aov. 8 (April 15, 535).

340 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

years tlie vicariate was restored. We are told that the Pontic
provinces were infested by robbers and assassins, who formed
armed bands and escaped the justice which threatened them in
one province by moving into another. No governor ventured
to transgress the limits of his own province by pursuing them.
It seemed that the difficulty could only be met by the appoint-
ment of a superior governor mth jurisdiction over all the
provinces, and the Vicar of Pontica was reinstated, but with
powers considerably larger than those which had belonged to
him before. He was to have military and financial as weh as
civil functions. He was to be the vicar not only of the Praetorian
Prefect, but also of the Master of Soldiers, and was to have
authority over all the troops stationed in his diocese. He was
also to represent the Master of Offices and the Counts of the
Private Estate and the Sacred Patrimony ; so that none of the
officials who served these ministers could defy or evade his
authority.^

In Thrace discord between the military and civil officials
appears to have been incessant, and as the Thracian provinces
constantly suffered from the incursions of the barbarians, want
of harmony in the administration was more disastrous here
than elsewhere. Justinian abolished the Vicar of Thrace and
the Vicar of the Long Wall, and committed the civil and military
power of the whole diocese to a single governor with the title
of Praetor Justinianus of Thrace.^ Soon afterwards, however,
the dominion of the new Praetor was curtailed by the with-
drawal from his jurisdiction of the frontier provinces of Lower
Moesia and Scythia. These, by a very curious arrangement, were
associated with Caria, the Cyclades, and Cyprus, and placed under
the control of a governor entitled Quaestor lustinianus of the
Army, who enjoyed an authority independent of the Praetorian
Prefect as well as of the Masters of Soldiers. He was really a
fourth Praetorian Prefect but with military functions, and his
institution must have been deliberately intended to diminish the
power of the Prefect of the East. The motive of this strange
union of provinces so far apart and without any common interest
to connect them is unknown ; ^ but we may conjecture that the

TJdid S, A.B. ^ ^ created the ofiKic, May 18,

^ Nov, 26, A.i). 535, May 18. 536, is lost, but information is stipplied

3 The body of the law {Nov. 41) by Nov. 50 (August 537).

XXI

PRO VINCI A L REORGA NISA TIO N

341

object was to place tlie financial expenses of adniimstering
the Danubian lands, exhausted by invasions, on provinces which
were exceptionally rich.^

These changes made a considerable breach in the hierarchical
system which had been constructed by Diocletian and Constan-
tine. The union of civil and military powers was also introduced
in many of the Asiatic provinces, and in every case the new
governor received the rank of spectabilis and a new^ title. Pisidia
and Lycaonia were each placed under a Praetor lustinianus. The
Count of Isauiia had already possessed the double authority
under the old system; Justinian did not change his title, but
gave him the rank of spectabilis.^ In three cases large provinces
were created by the union of two smaller. Pontus Polemoniacus
was joined to Helenopontus, and formed a new Helenopontus
under a Moderator lustinianus. Paphlagonia and Honorias were
reunited as Paphlagonia under a Praetor lustinianus. The
Moderator and the Praetor possessed the double functions.^

The third case was the union of the two provinces of Cappa-
docia under a Proconsul lustinianus. Cappadocia presented
peculiar problems of its own. It had drifted into an almost
anarchical condition wdiich demanded special treatment. Here
were the large Imperial domains, wdiich were under the manage-
ment of the Praepositus of the Sacred Bedchamber, and the
rest of the land seems to have mainly consisted of large private
estates. The wealthy landowmers and their stewards kept bodies
of armed retainers, and acted as if they were masters of the
provinces. They even encroached upon the Imperial domains,
and the Emperor complains that ahnost all the Imperial Estate
has become private property.’’ He declares that every day he
and his ministers have to deal with the petitions of Cappadocians
who have been deprived of their property, including clergy and
especially women. The governors and officials were afraid to

^ This is rather suggested by the
words of John Lyd. I)e mag. ii. 29

TrpodyeL eirapxov i-rroTrrnjv rwy '2!>Kv6tHWV
dvudjLiemf. dcpopLcras aijr(p i7rapx^(^s rpeh
rds Tracr^v £77^5 ciVopwraras.

- Pisidia, Nov. 24 ; Lycaonia, Nov.
25 ; Isauria, N'ov. 27 (all in May 535).

® Helenopontus, N'ov. 28 ; Faphla-
goiiia, Nov. 29 (July 535). Other
changes were the elevation of the

praeses of Phoenicia Libanensis to the
rank of Moderator (si:)ectabilis), and
that of the praeses of Palestine
Salutaris to that of proconsul, with
authority to supervise the govern-
ment of Palestine Secunda. See
Edict 4 and Nov. 103 (536). Tlie
civil governor of Arabia, whose
authority had been reduced to a
cipher by that of the duke, w'as made
a moderator, Nov. 102 (536).

342 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

resist these powerful magnates, who stopped their mouths with
gold. '' The crimes which are committed in. that country/’ says
Justinian, '' are so many that even the greatest man would find
it difficult to check them/’ -He therefore invested the new
governor of united Cappadocia with exceptional powers and
prestige. The Proconsul controlled the civil administration and
the military forces, but he was also responsible for the revenue
and controlled all the officials and agents of the Private Estate,
and that not only in Cappadocia, but in other provinces of
the Pontic diocese. He received a salary double that of the
Moderator of Helenopontus or the Praetor of Paphlagonia.^

Some changes were also made in the administration of Egypt.-
Here perhaps the chief preoccupation of the government was to
secure the regular delivery of the grain with which the country
of the Nile supplied Constantinople. Justinian found that the
wheels of the administrative machinery were out of gear. For
some time back, he says, things have been in such confusion in
the Egyptian Diocese that the central authorities have not
known what was going on there, 'tThe taxpayers asserted that
all the legal dues were demanded in a lump, and that they had
entirely fulfilled their liabihties, while we received nothing beyond
the corn supplies ; and the curials, the pagarchs (mayors of the
villages), the tax-collectors, and the governors arranged things
in such a way as to obscure the true facts and to make profit
for themselves.” But there were other considerations, wffiich,
though not specially mentioned in the Imperial edict, must have
influenced the legislator. In a.d. 536 and 537 Alexandria had
been the scene of popular seditions, arising out of a contest
between two heretical claimants to the Patriarchal throne. The
military forces had been powerless to suppress the disorders.^
Justinian here adopted a policy opposite to that which he
had pursued in Cappadocia. Instead of making one man re-
sponsible for the whole administration, he reduced the responsi-

^ Nov. 30. The salary of the Pro-
consul was 20 lbs. of* gold (about
£900) ; that of the Moderator and
the Praetor was 725 7iom, (about
£450). The Pj’aetors of Thrace,
Lycaonia, and Pisidia received 300
Tiom. aimuaiiy (£187).

^ Edki 13, A. I). 538-539 (there can
be little doubt about the date ; it was
addressed to John Capp. in a 2nd

indietion, see § 15 and § 24. The
reasons given by Zaoharia von L.
for ascribing it to 553-554 are not
convincing, and are eunfiited by
papyrus evidence, sec^ Gelzer, ib.
23 sq.). This long edict throws much
light on the arrangements connected
with the corn supplies.

® Liboratus, Brev. 19. 0i>. G^dzer,

ib, 25 sqq.

XXI PRO VINCI A L RBORGA NISA IN ON 34 3

bilities of tlie Augiistal Prefect, wbo bad bitlierto governed the
Diocese. He made him governor of Alexandria and of the two
provinces of Aegyptns Prima and Aegyptus Secunda, with civil
and military powers.^ These provinces were not united ; they
still retained their civil governors, subordinate to the Prefect,
who now bore the title of duke. The Emperor expressly justified
this change by the consideration that the supervision of the
whole Diocese was too much for one man. It is not quite clear
whether the two provinces of Lower and Upper Libya were
united under one civil prefect, or whether they continued to be
distinct, but in either case the governors w'ere placed under the
control of the military duke of the Libyan frontier.^ In Upper
Egypt the duke of the Thebaid received the Augustal title and
was endow^ed with both civil and military authority over the
two Thebaid provinces whose governors w^ere subordinate to
him. The general result of these reforms was the completion
of the policy of abolishing Diocesan governors in the Eastern
Prefecture. In Egypt there were now eight (or nine) provinces
grouped in five independent circumscriptions, Egypt, Augustam-
nica, Arcadia,^ Thebais, and Libya, of which the governors had
each military as well as civil competence and were directly
responsible to the Praetorian Prefect of the East.

The law which introduced these changes laid down minute
regulations for the collection and transportation of the corn
supplies both for Constantinople and for Alexandria, and for the
gathering in of all other dues whether for the treasury of the
Praetorian Prefect or for that of the Count of the Sacred Largesses.
The several duties and responsibilities of all the authorities con-
cerned were carefully distinguished.

^ Mareotes and the city of Mene- Paraetoiiium in Lower Libya was the
laites were separated from Aegyptus seat of the duke of the Libyan frontier.

Prima and added to the . i^royince Upper Libya was the Cyrenaica.

of Libya. The Prefect’s staff, both Arcadia is not mentioned in the

civil {adjov(TTa\L(iv7}) and military Edict, but there is some evidence
(oop/a/cT?), was to number 600, and from papyri which confirms the
he W'as to receive the large salary of reasonable inference that it was
40 lbs. of gold (£1800). ^ ^ ^ (Gelzer, lb. 29). From

- The Edict speaks of the same sources we learn that the

iwapx^oL and rod rps Ai/iiJcwr 7roXm/coO governor was known as the count of

(civil) as if there were only Ai’cadia, and afterwards had the rank

one province (cp. the note of 2acharia of Patrician {ib, 33), a dignity which
V. L. in his edition, p. 51). But in was also conferred on the Augustai
the Descri’ptio orhis Romani oi Geov- dolces of Egypt and the Thebaid.
gius Cyx)rins (c. A.n. 600) the two For the title dovi; ical avyov<Trd\Los oi
provinces appear (ed. Gelzer, p. 40). the duke of Thebais sec iL 23.

344 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

The treatment of the Armenian provinces, which embraced
the most easterly districts of the Diocese of Poiitus, stands
apart. Here Justinian’s policy was not to increase the size of
the governments, bnt to rearrange. He formed four provinces,
partly by readjustments in the two old Armenian provinces,
partly by taking districts from Helenopontiis, and partly by
converting new districts into provincial territory, suppressing the
native .satraps. ,

The new First Armenia, which had the privilege of being
governed by a proconsul, included four towns of tlie old First
Armenia, namely Tlieodosiopolis, Satala, Nicopolis, and Colonea,
and two towns of the old Pontus Polemoniaciis, Trapezus and
Cerasiis. The once important town of Bazanis or Leontopolis
received the name of the Emperor, and was elevated to the rank
of the metropolis.

The new Second Armenia, under a praeses, corresponded to
the old First Armenia, and included its towns Sebastea and
Sebastopolis. But in place of the towns which had been handed
over to the new First Armenia, it received Comana, Zela, and
Brisa from the new province of Helenopontiis.

The Third Armenia, governed by a comes histiniamis with
military as well as civil authority, corresponded to the old
Second Armenia, and included Mehtene, Area, Arabissus, Cuciisus,
Ariarathea, and Cappadocian Comana.

Fourth Armenia was a province new in fact as well as in
name, consisting of the Roman districts beyond the Euphrates ^
(to the east of the Third Armenia), which had hitherto been
governed by native satraps. It was placed under a consular,
and the metropolis was Martyropolis.

The names appear to have been determined by the geo-
graphical order. The new trans-Euphratesian province went
naturally with the district of Mehtene, and therefore the Second
Armenia became the Third, because it was connected with wdiat
it was most natural to call the Fourth. For the consular of
Fourth Armenia was to be in a certain way dependent on the
count of Third Armenia, who was to hear appeals from the less
important province. In the same way the new First and Second
Armenias naturally went together, and therefore it was con-

1 Sopiianeiie, Anzitene, Soptene, AstManene, and Belabitene. Cp. Pro-
copius, Aed. iii. 1.

XXI

PROVINCIAL REORGANISATION

345

veiiient that the numbers should be consecutive. The 'praeses
of Second was dependent to a certain extent on the proconsul
of First Armenia.^ ... .

In the case of these provinces, Justinian not only revised tlie
administrative machinery, but also introduced changes of another
kind. Hitherto the Armenians had lived according to their own
laws and customs, and had not been called upon to regulate their
private dealings according to the civil law of Rome. It was in
the domain of real property that the divergence of Armenian
from Roman la^v provoked the Emperor’s special intervention.
Armenian estates ^ passed undivided from father to son, or in
default of a son to the nearest male agnate. Ho proprietor could
leave his property by wull— wulls, in fact, were unknown. No
woman could inherit, nor did she receive a dowry when she
married. Justinian determined to break down this system, which
he professes to consider barbarous ; and in two successive laws ^
he ordained that henceforward the inheritance of property
should be regulated by Roman la^v, that women should inherit
their due shares, and should receive dowries. It is not probable
that Justinian was moved to this reform solely by consideration
for the female population of the Armenian provinces. Apart
from the fact that it outraged his ideal of uniformity that Roman
law should not prevail in any quarter of the Empire, we may
suspect that it was his aim to break up the large estates of
Armenia and thereby weaken the power of the princes and
magnates, to force them to give up their national exclusiveness
and draw- them into the sphere of general Imperial interests.^
The policy was crowned with success. Constantinople and
the Imperial service had already begun to attract many
Armenians, and this movement towards the centre increased.
In Justinian’s reign men of this race began to come to the
front in the Imperial service ; Narses and Artabanes are the

^ Noi\ 31 { Maxell 536). The regu-
lations are discussed at length by
Adonts, Armcjiiia V EpokJm lus-
tlaiancif 157 sqq. I cannot think
tliat he is right in supposing that in
selecting his First and Third Armenia
as provinces of superior rank the
Emperor mfiiienced by no better
reason than “ to reward the Imperial
favourites Acacius and Thomas,’ ’ who
at the time were governing in those

districts (p. 176) ; for he could easily
have transferred them. Both these
persons were of Armenian origin,
and Procopius gives Acacius a very
had character (&P. ii. 3).

^ Edict S : Nov. 21 (March
536). These documents are discussed
at length by Adonts, oji, cit 184 sqq,

4 Adonts, lb. 201.

346 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

most eminent examples. Hereafter tliey would ascend tlie
throne itself.^

The long list of administrative changes which we have sur-
veyed shows that the Emperor addressed himself earnestly in
A.D. 535 to the task of thoroughly overhauling the vsystem of
provincial government, and, in the appreciation of his work as
a ruler, these reforms have hardly received due attention. He
did not attempt, according to any general preconceived plan, to
organise a new system, like Augustus or Diocletian, but sought
to remedy, in each case according to its own circumstances, the
defects of the existing scheme. It is characteristic of him that
he likes to justify his innovations by appeals to history and
antiquity. For example, when he bestows upon Lycaonia a
governor of higher rank with the title of praetor, he pedantically
recalls the legendary connexion of the country with Lycaon of
Arcadia, who was also said to have colonised in Italy, thereby
anticipating Aeneas the ancestor of Eomulus. “ On this account,
it would be just to decorate the province with the ancient symbols
of Roman government, and therefore give the governor the
title of praetor, older even than that of consul.’’ It was prob-
ably a consideration of pubhc opinion as well as his own personal
sentiments that made him seek to represent his innovations,
whenever it was possible, as reversions to an older order. He
wished it to be thought, and possibly thought himself, that he
was ‘‘ reintroducing antiquity with greater splendour.” ^ He
frequently speaks with pride of his own native language, Latin ;
yet it was in his reign that it definitely became the practice to
issue the laws in Greek. The contrast between the innovator
and. the enthusiast for historical tradition stands out most con-
spicuously in the abolition of the consulship.

§ 3. The Lapse of the OonsulsJdp (a.d. 542)

It would be difficult to contend that Justinian in allowing:
the consulship to lapse was not thoroughly justified by the

^ In the period after Justinian, and and from the Third Armenia south-
indirectly as a consequence of his westward towards Cilicia and the
I)olicy, a westward expansion of the Mediterranean. See Adoiits, ib, 203
Armenian population began in two sq.

directions, from the Second Armenia ^ TV TraXaLor’ijTCL irdKiv ficrd fxeilovos
westward towards Caesarea and north- &i>dovs els Trjv TroXtreiap eTravayayopTeSy
westward towards the Black Sea, Nov» 24, § 1.

XXI THE LAPSE OF THE CONSULSHIP 347

circumstances. Before lie finally took this step, lie had made an
effort to render possible the preservation of an institution which
for nearly a thousand years had grown with the growth, of the
Roman state.’' For all political purposes the institution was
obsolete. It was a distinction to a man to hold it, to give his
name to the year and have it perpetuated in the Fasti Consulares.
But the public spectacles, which the new consul exhibited in the
first wrecks of January, and the largesses which he was expected
to distribute to the people, entailed a large outlay, which only
the wealthiest could undertake. It became more and more
difficult to find private persons ready to incur the expenditure,
which amounted at least to 2000 lbs. of gold (£90,000), for the
sake of the honour, and the Emperor was sometimes obliged to
contribute from the treasury a large part of the money. ^ Beli-
sarius was consul in a.d. 535, and in the twm following years
no consul w^as elected, presumably because no one was willing
to pay and the treasury could not afford the luxury. We can
well imagine that there was much disappointment and dis-
content among the populace of the capital, and Justinian
attempted to rescue the endangered institution by a legal
curtailment of the expenses. The Praetorian Prefect, John of
Cappadocia, had come forward to fill the consulship for a.d.
538, perhaps on this condition, and a few” days before the kalends
of January the Emperor subscribed a law ^ wrhich abbreviated
the programme of consular spectacles, made it optional for the
consul to distribute a largesse or not, but ordained that if there
w”ere a distribution it should be of silver not of gold.^ It is
manifest that the permission to withhold the largesse was use-
less, as no consul could have ventured to face the unpopularity
wffiich such an economy wmuld bring upon him. The people
ought to be grateful to Mm, Justinian thinks, and not grumble

^ Procopius, //. A. 23. 13. days : January 1, inaugural pro-

- Nov. 105, dated 537, December 28. cession and ceremony of investiture ;
It is addressed to Strategius, Clount January 2, chariot races ; January 3,
of the Sacred Largesses, presumably theatroJcynegioii (exhibition of wild
be(;aiise the fisc had sometimes con- beasts) ; January 4, combats of men
tributed to the cxpcuises. Justmian wth wild beasts; January 5, thea-
says that the law is intended to secure^ tricai representations ; January 6,
that the consulship shall be |)erpetuaf chariot races , January 7, the consul
and not beyond any suitable person’s lays down his office,
purse (or ws ^

airacn oe rois dyadots dvdpdcnv VTrdpxu ^ The silver is to be in the

It provides that the consular form of miliaresia val ja-riXoLs kcu vavKioLs
festivities shall last for only seven Jcups) Aral rerpccyw/dois Kai rois roiOj'>rois,

348 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

at this curtailment of the amusements and largesses to which
they have been accnstoined, for they are threatened with the
alternative of enjoying neither one nor the other. He expressly
exempted the Emperor from the provisions of the law.

The new regulations postponed the doom of the consulship
for just four years. Basilius was consul for a.d. 541,^ and he was
the last private person to hold it. The practice of dating years
officially by the consuls was not given up. During the rest of
Justinian’s reign the year was designated as ^^such and such
a year after the consulship of Basilius,” ^ Succeeding Emperors
assumed the consular dignity in the first year of their reigns.
But Justinian introduced a new system of dating state documents
by three distinct indications, the consulate (or post-consulate),
the regnal year of the Emperor, and the indiction (a.d. 537).^
The innovation of using the regnal year as an official mark of
time was perhaps suggested by the practice of the Vandal
kings.^

§4. Financial Policy

The system of raising revenue in the later Roman Empire was
so oppressive that there is perhaps no Emperor whom a hostile
critic could not have made out a case for charging with a deliberate
design to ruin his subjects. The lot of the provincials might
have been tolerable if the ministers and governors and their
hosts of subo'rdinate officials had all been men of stainless integrity,
but an incorruptible official seems to have been the exception.
The laws show how the Emperors were always striving to secure
a just and honest administration and imagining new devices to
check corruption and oppression. In such endeavours Justinian
was indefatigable, as his laws eloquently prove. But it was
easy for an enemy to dwell on all the evils and abuses which

^ One leaf of the consular diptych Bel, amt. Ai.
of x^nicius Faiistus Albinus Dasilius ® Rov. 47 (x4ugiist 31). (i/.p. a

is preserved in Florence, and Meyer law of March 545 is dated “in
thinks that the second leaf may the 18th year of Justinian, the
be identified with one in the Brera 4th after the consulship of Basilius,
at Milan, with the inscription Et the 8th iiidiction,”) (Shortly after-
ml{’ustris) ex c. dom{esticoru}n) pat wards in 538-539, the practice came
(ricius) cons. ord. (Zwei ant. Elfenb. in of dating the issue of bronze coins
pp. 74-75). by the number of the regnal year on

“ A.D. 536 and 537, in which no the reverse,
consul was elected, had been de- ^ See Mommsen, Hist. Schr. iii.
signated as p.c. Belisarii and p.c. 357;

XXI

FINANCIAL POLICY

349

existed, to represent them as due to Ms deliberate policy, and
to ignore his remedial legislation or misinterpret its intention.
This is the method of the author of the Secret History, His
statements as to the abuses and hardships and misery suffered
by Justinian’s subjects are borne out in general by Justinian’s
own statements in his laws, but the same laws disprove the
historian’s inferences as to the Emperor’s intentions. Although,
as has been already observed, his policy of aggrandisement and
the scale of his public expenditure placed a disastrous strain on
the resources of his subjects, he was far from being indifferent
to their welfare, and he fully understood that it was to the interest
of the treasury that they should be protected from injustice
and extortion. We have already seen some of his efforts in
connexion mth his reforms in the provincial admim'stration.
The fact remains, however, that he was inflexible in insisting
on the regular exaction of legal dues and was less liberal and
prudent than many of his predecessors in cancelling accumulated
arrears, and remitting the taxation of provinces which had been
devastated by hostile invasions.^

If we examine the principal charges of economic oppression
which were preferred against him by his enemies, we shall find
that the abuses which they stigmatise were for the most part
not new inventions of Justinian but legacies from the past.
There was nothing new, for instance, in the fact that the in-
habitants of the provinces through which troops passed to the
scene of war w^ere bound to provide food for the soldiers and
fodder for the horses, and to transport these supplies to the
camps. Sometimes a pro^dnce had not sufficient provisions
and they had to be procured elsewhere. The system, which
was known as coemption,^ lent itself to intolerable exactions,

^ Procox>ms, H.A. 23 (where it is, of coertmtion of which Procojuiis
ho werer, acknowledged that a year’s {H.A, 22. 17 sqcj.) comx^lains and
tri bo to was remitted to cities actually gives one exanii)ie. One year when
taken by an enemy). It is stated the harvest in -Rgy^it was had and
here that there was no remission of the corn sux)ply was insufficient for
arrears tlirougliout the thirty-twm . the needs of the people, the Praetorian
yoiivs of Ids rule from 518 to 550 (the Prefect bought up immense quantities
author represents Justin’s reign as in Thrace and Bithynia at low com-
virtii ally part of Justinian’s). This is j)uisory prices; the farmers were
not accurate, as there was a remission obliged to transport the corn to the
in 522 {Nov. 147, § 1). In 553, how- capital, and were at a dead loss,
ever, there was a general remission of This seems to have occurred in 545™
all arrears to 554 inclusive {ib.). 646, shortly before Peter Barsymes

- There was another form was deposed from the office of Prefect.

350 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

and Justinian in a.d. 545 issued a law to guard the interests of
the inhabitants, it provided that they should be paid in full
for all they furnished to the troops, and that no contributions
in naoney should be demanded from them, and forbade them to
give anything gratuitously or without a written receipt.^ Another
burdensome institution was the which, it will be re-

membered, when lands fell out of cultivation, made, in certain
cases, neighbouring landowners responsible for the taxes.
Justinian maintained this principle, but he does not appear to
have made it harsher than before, and he sought to guard against
its abuse.‘^ It is probable, however, that in the oriental provinces
during the Second Persian War the invasions of the enemy as
well as the pestilence had caused the ruin of many proprietors,
and that the application of the epibole was a frequent and serious
grievance.^

One tax is mentioned which seems to have been a novelty,
and of which we can find no trace in the Imperial legislation.
It was called the air- tax or sky-tax (amlw), a name which
suggests that it was a tax on high buildings, such as the insulae
or apartment houses in cities. It was administered by the
Praetorian Prefect and yielded 3000 lbs. of gold (£135,000) a
year to the treasury, while it is insinuated that the Prefects
made much more out of it.^

^ Nov. 130. Quartering soldiers in
private houses was forbidden (§ 9),
Procopius, H.A. 23. 11 sqq.

^ Nov. 128 {a.d. 545), §§ 7, 8.
Here the persons responsible arc
described as oi 6f.ij5ov\a bfijKyjvffa
Xwpta K€K7ii]fi6voL (scc abovc. Chap.
XIII. p. 444 sq.f where the general
nature of the epibole is explained). It
is expressly stated that they were
not liable for arrears. Justin and
Justinian relieved Churcb lands from
liability to the epibole (see Cyril,
Vita Sabae, 294).

® Procopius, ib. 9 and 15-16.

^ The only source is Procopius,
H.A. 21. 1 sgg., who states that it
was an unusual tax and was so called
&(rTr€p e;- de'po? cigI avrqv q)€pofiiv7}v.
In much later times we meet a tax
of the same name (Leo VI, TacUca,
XX. 71 ; Alexius Comiienus, Nov. 27,
§ 4). Kalligas, improbably, explains
the depLtd/v as a hearth-tax (raTr/u/cjr) ;
such a tax would liave produced a

far larger sum. Tiie disciissit)n of
Panchenko (0 tainoi isL 149 sqq.)
throws little light on it, and he mis-
interprets Procopius, who says /cat
ravra pGif Tcp avToicpdropL dTro(p€p€LV
•p^iovVj aurol Se ttXoOtov ^ainXiKbv irepi-
e^dWopTO ovoGPL TTovLp. He curiously
refers avroi to the ministry of tine
comes larcf., whereas it is the Pi'aet.
Prefects who are in question, and,
explaining the words to mean that
the proceeds of the tax \yore j^aid
into the treasury and then paid out
to the officials, he infers that the
Xjurpose of the tax was to su]q)ly
the officials with sport vine (p[s. loi,
153), But TTGpLei^dWoPTo refers to
KyiTreiaL^ in the preceding scmtence,
not to legal acquisition. lUonnier
supi>osed that tiie dGpLKw was a tax
on houses (Etude de droit hyz. 508
and that it was so called from
counting the openings, doors, and
windows. But this is a far-fetched
derivation and incongruous w'ith the

XXI

FINANCIAL POLICY

351

The decay of municipal life reached a further stage in the
reign of Justinian, who describes its decline ; ^ and increased
interference on the part of the central government in the local
finances seems to have been unavoidable. We saw how Ana-
stasius took the supervision of the collection of taxes out of the
hands of the decurions and appointed vincUces, whose administra-
tion proved a failure. Justinian stigmatises them as pestilential
and appears to have abolished them, though not entirely.*^
The rates, known as politika, which were imposed for municipal
purposes and used to be altogether under the control of the
local authorities, had already in the time of Anastasius been
partly appropriated by the fisc. They "were collected along with
the other taxes, and were divided into two portions, of which
one went to the treasury, the other to the cities. The same
Emperor sometimes sent a special inspector to see that the
necessary public works were carried out.^ In a.d. 530 Justinian
placed the management of the public works, the local expenditure,
and the control of the accounts in the hands of the bishops and
the leading local dignitaries. But he reserved to himself the
right of sending special accountants to exercise supervision.^
These accountants {discussores) must be sent by his own personal
mandate, and the local authorities are warned to recognise no
one who comes with a mandate of the Praetorian Prefect. It
would appear that the treatment of the poUiika as a due to the
treasury had given the Praetorian Prefects and their officials
additional opportunities of injustice and extortion, for the
Emperor shows great concern to exclude any interference on
the part of this ministry in the local administration. Some
years later he committed to the provincial governors the general
duty of seeing that the most necessary public works, such as
repairs of bridges, roads, walls, harbours, were carried out, that
the cities were properly provisioned with food, and that the

use of drip ; whereas “ aerial house ’’
'vs'ould })eeii a natural Greek

ex])ression for ‘‘ sky-scraper.’^ More-
il- is clear from the amount of
the yield that it cannot have been a
tax on all houses. Stein {Hermes,
iii. o79) discusses it in connexion
witli Fov. 43, and factories {ipyaa-rrjpLa)
would probably have been liable to
the tax.

^ Nov, 38, Pref.

2 lb, and Edict 13.

® C,J, X. 16. 13. Procopius {H.A .
26. 6) ascribes to Justinian the

appropriation of iroXiriKd by the
treasur^% and although Nov, 128
seems inconsistent witii this charge,
the evidence of Edict 13 virtually
bears it out. Cp. Maspero in Archiv
f,Papyrusf or seining, v. 363 sqq, (1913).

* G.J. X. 39. 4 discussores operum
publicorum.

352 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

accounts were duly audited. But they Were to do this in person
and not through subordinates.^

But the proceeds of the local taxes, diminished by the claims
of the treasury, were frequently insufficient to defray the
municipal upkeep, especially when excei)tional expenses w^ere
incurred in consequence of earthquakes, for instance, or hostile
invasions. In such cases, the matter was ref erred to the Emperor,
who sometimes advanced large sums from the treasury to assist
a city which had been visited by some grave disaster. But as a
rule the method was to levy a special tax known as a descriptiony
which was assessed in proportion to the amount of the land-tax.
That this tax gave rise to abuses is shown by the fact that
Justinian forbids governors to impose descrij}tions on towns
during their progresses through the provinces.^

The decline of the municipal resources became more marked
from A.D. 543 onwards in consequence of the ravages of the
Plague, and it led to the decay of the liberal professions. The
cities, forced to economise, withdrew the public salaries which
they had hitherto paid to physicians and teachers. Advocates
are said to have suffered because people were so impoverished
that they could not afford the luxury of litigation. Some towns
could not defray the cost of lighting the streets, and public
amusements, theatres, and chariot races were curtailed.®

On the whole, although he made alterations in detail, which
were chiefly designed to check the abuse of their authority by
officials and to diminish the power of the Praetorian Prefect,
Justinian preserved the existing financial system in all its
essential principles. He did not make it worse, and he en-
deavoured to arrest the progress of municipal decay. The ruin

^ See the Mcmdaia to lands were exempt from these dta~

governors, Nov, 17, § 4, a.d. {(7. J. xii. 1. 7 ; Nov. 131, § 5),

also iVo?;y. 24, § 3 ; 25, § 4 ; 26, § 4 ; which Procopius {H.A. 23. 17-19)
30, § 8. In Nov. 128 (a.d. 545), how- ; describes as one of the principal
ever, the rights of the governor to burdens falling on the provincials,
interfere are carefully limited. He They had at one time been imposed cm
is to see that the portion of the other classes as well as on tlio ciirials
TroXiTLKd appropriated to the city is and landowners (cp. C.J. xi. 1. 2).
duly paid, that it is not diverted to These StaypacliaL exfraordSvariae are
improper purposes by the inhabitants, to be distinguished from diaypae/mi
that the bishop and the curials duly lucraMviav, taxes on estates v'hich
elect a ‘‘ father of the city,” a corn- changed hands. (Jliurch lands were
commissioner (o-inoi/???), and other exemi)ted from this burden also
functionaries, and that the accounts {Nov, 131, ib.).
are regularly audited (§ 16).

^ Imperial, senatorial, and church ® Procojuus, H.A. 20. 5-11.

XXI

FINANCIAL POLICY

353

wrought by the inroads of the Persians and of the northern
barbarians, and the effects of the Plague made, however, in
many parts of the Empire the burdens more grievous than ever,
and the Emperor may be blamed for not seeing that a funda-
mental and drastic reform of the whole system of taxation was
demanded in the interest of the public welfare. The retrench-
ments which he might well have made in the early years of his
reign, instead of embarking on large schemes of conquest and
spending exorbitant sums on buildings, 'were almost impossible
subsequently when he was involved simultaneously in the wars
with Persia and the Ostrogoths. The measure to which he wms
forced in a.d. 652 of cancelling all arrears of taxation is an
eloquent indication of the plight of the provinces, for his previous
policy shows that he would not have forgone a fraction of the
treasury’s legal dues unless absolute necessity had compelled hini.^
The conquest of Africa enabled him to make large additions
to the Imperial estates,^ but in the eastern provinces also the
Private Estate and the crown domains appear to have been
gradually and considerably extended, at the expense of adjacent
private property. We have not much information as to the
methods and pretexts by which this was effected, but about
fifteen years after the death of Justinian complaints reached
the Emperor Tiberius from almost all the provinces as to the
unjust appropriation of private property by the officials of
Imperial estates.^ That this form of robbery was practised in
Justinian’s reign we have other evidence.^ In some cases on

^ Stein {SUidien, 143 6'g'g.) has
attempted to prove that the total
revenue of the State in this reign
cannot have much exceeded 7,000,00^1
solidi (£4,375,000), and that this was
enough to cover the outgoings. He
starts with a fallacious assumption,
and leaves out of account many
departments of expenditure. Even
if J ustinian had no more than
21,000,000 subjects, his conclusion
would imply that the taxation only
came to about 4s. 2d. per head of the
population annually. The errors have
been pointed out by Andreades in
Revue des etudes grecqms, xxxiv. No.
156 (1921). The taxation accounts of
Antaeopolis {Pap, Cairo, i. 67057)
give information which may ulti-
mately help us to estimate the con-
tribution of Egypt to the revenue^
VOL. TI

Cp. the accounts of the village of
Aphrodito {ih. 67058) and those of
the rich proprietor Ammonius (ii.
67138-67139).

2 Procopius, B,Y, ii. 14. This
policy led to sedition am.ong the
soldiers, who expected that the land
would be distributed among them-
selves.

3 Zacharia v. Lingenthal, Jus
Graeco-Rom., iii., Kov, 12.

^ Aetherius, curaior domus divinae
under Justinian, was brought to
account under Justin II. for his acts
of plunder (rds re rCbv '^LovTtjjv rdv re
T€KevT(hvT(j}v rds ovalas XTjt^ojLLevos,
Evagrius, v. 3). The aj)propriations
of Anatolius, another curator, are
described by Agathias, v. 4. Cp.
Procopius, JEf,A, 12. 12,

2 a

354 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the death of a proprietor his will or the claims of his legal heirs
were set aside and his possessions acquired by the fisc. It is
only too likely that many unjust acts were deliberately com-
mitted by the help of legal quibbles, but we need not pay serious
attention to the allegations that Justinian forged wills or acts
of donation in order to acquire the possessions of rich subjects.^
Nor does the less improbable charge that he misused criminal
justice for the purpose of confiscating property seem to be borne
out by the facts. ¥or instance, he restored, so far as he was able,
to the disloyal senators their properties which had become
forfeit to the State after the Nika rebellion. And in the later
years of his reign, at a time -w^hen fiscal necessities were urgent,
he abolished confiscation as a penalty for ordinary crimes.^

The treatment of the private estates had varied, as we have
seen, from time to time since the days of Septimius Severus.
The last innovation had been that of Anastasius who, instead of
incorporating recently confiscated lands in the res pivata, had
instituted a new minister, the Count of the Patrimony. This
had simply meant a division of administration, for the Patrimony
as well as the Private Estate was appropriated to public needs,
not to the Emperor’s private use. Justinian made yet another
change. The Patrimony disappears,^ and the domains which
composed it are placed under the management of* Curators
{curatores divinae domus). We do not know exactly what was
involved in this change ; more perhaps than a mere change of

^ Procopius, ib. 1-11, gives six
iastances with the names of the
persons. We can accept them as
cases in which the fisc inherited, but
the charge of forgery is evidently
asserted merely on hearsay, as indeed
in one case the writer lets out {diaObKiju
IjVTvep ov Trap €K€lvov ^vjKeTcrdaL Blol-
T€ 6 pv'\\ 7 )roit.). Against these cases and
that of the inheritance of Anatolius
{H.A. 29. 17 sqq.) we may set the
generosity of Justinian in dealing
with the daughters of Eulaliiis (John
Mai. xviii. 439).

2 Noi\ 134, § 13, A.D. 556.

3 Stein {Studien, 174 sqq,) has
established this, or at least made it
highly probable. (1) There is no
mention of the comes pair, in Q,J,
vii. 37. 3 (a.d. 531), where he ought to
appear if he still existed, or in Nov,

22 (a.d. 536). (2) In Justinian’s

law's sacr, patrimonittni is sometimes
used as an equivalent of s, larg. ; this
w'ould have been confusing if the
patrimony existed. (3) While we
hear no more of the comes pair., we
begm to hear a great deal of the
divinae domus and noslcl curatores per
qiios res divlnaimm domuuni agutdnr
[OH, ib,). To TTCLTpLpbvLOP in Proco-
pius, H.A. 22. 12, Stein identifies
with the estates in Sicily vfiiich were
uiKler the com. pair, who wa,s in-
stituted by Theoderic, and continued
to function under fhivstinian. The
passage in John Lydus, De mag. ii,
27, on 6 Xeyo.aeros TrarpLpibvLOS of
Anastasius, would certainly by itself
suggest that the com. 'qjair, still
existed during Justinian's reign, but
it cannot be i>ressed in view of the
other evidence.

XXI

FINANCIAL POLICY

355

name. The domm divina was the patrimony,^ and the Curator,
subordinate to whom were the curators of the several domains,^
discharged the functions of the comes patrimonii. But the Curator
seems to have been a court official rather than a State official,
and Justinian’s aim may have been to assert the principle that
the administration of the patrimonial domains, consisting of
confiscated properties, w-as the Emperor’s own personal affair.

The policy of this reign in regard to trade is not very clear,
and it is difficult to say how far it was responsible for the economic
crises yffilch arose and compelled the intervention of the govern-
ment. Some changes ywe made in the custom-house arrange-
ments at Constantinople. Hitherto the custom duties had been
collected when ships reached the harbour of the capital. But
there were posts of observation in the Hellespont, and the
Bosphorus to make sure that the public regulations were not
evaded. An officer was atationed at Abydos to see that no
vessel with a cargo of arms entered the straits without Imperial
orders, and that no vessel passed through to the Aegean without
papers duly signed by the Master of Offices. This officer was
paid by fees levied on the owners of the ships. ^ Another officer
was posted at Hieron, at the northern issue of the Bosphorus,
to examine the cargoes of craft sailing into the Euxine and
prevent the export of certain w’^ares which it was forbidden to
furnish to the peoples of southern Eussia and the Caucasian
regions.^ He wms paid a fixed salary and received no money
from the shipowners. Justinian’s innovation was to convert
both these stations into custom-houses for imports, of which
the officials were salaried but also received an additional bonus
proportionate to the amount of the duties which they collected.^

^ The equation ^vili be found in
Procopius, B.G. i. 4. 1 and 6. 26.

^ Stein asserts that the curators of
the ])artienlar domains were inde-
pendent and had no superior. This
certainly was not tlie case under
Justinian and Justin 11. The title
curator domhncae doimis, without any
limitation in C.J. ib.^ and Kovpdrcop
tG>v obudv in Nov. 148, § 1, point to a
central controller. Anatolius, for in-
stance, held this post (AgatMas, V. 3).;

Tlie source is Procopius, jff. A.
25. 2 &q(i. C]). tlie inscription of

Abydos (probably belonging to the

time of Aiiastasiiis) published in the
MUtMUungeji des dmtsckeri arch. Imt.
(Athen), iv. 307 $qq. (1879).

4 For quae res exportari 'non, debeanl
see) O.J. iv. 41 (wine, oil, lard, and
arms are mentioned).

A* The title of the officer at Hieron
was in later times at least Kop-ps rov
Aejpod Kal rov Ubvrov. John Mai.
(xviii. 432) describes him as Kofir}s
(TTevwu rip llorriKijs t'aXdcrcr?;?, and
dates his mstitution to a.d. 528-529.
For seals of coinmerciarii of Abydos
see Schliimbcrger, Big. bp. 196 sqq.

356 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

But the tolls on exports were still collected at Constantinople,
and these charges are said to have been so onerous that they
forced the merchants to raise the prices of their wares enormously.
But we have no information as to the tariff.^

Justinian is accused of having made necessaries as -well as
luxuries dearer not only by exorbitant duties on merchandise — •
a charge which we cannot control— but also by establishing
monopolies ” for the benefit of the government.^ The restric-
tions which he imposed in the silk trade were considered when
we surveyed the commercial relations of the Empire with foreign
lands, and we saw that, though his policy in some respects w^as
not happy, he deserves credit for his efforts to solve a diffioult
problem. It is far from clear how he made an income of
300 lbs. of gold from the sale of bread in the capital, as he is
alleged to have done.*^ Whatever new regulations were intro-
duced cannot be described as a monopoly in the proper sense of
the term. It is, however, certain that in the years after the
Plague the price of labour rose considerably, and in a.b. 544 the
Emperor issued an edict to re-establish the old prices. “We
have learned,’’ he says, “ that since the visitation of Grod traders
and artisans and husbandmen and sailors have yielded to a spirit
of covetousness and are demanding prices and wages two or
three times as great as they formerly received. We therefore
forbid all such to demand higher wages or prices than before.
We also forbid contractors for building and for agricultural and
other works to pay the workmen more than was customary in
old days.” A fine of three times the additional profit was
imposed on those who transgressed the edict. Justinian evidently
assumes that there was no good reason for the higher rates.
Unfortunately we have no information as to the effects of the
edict, in which the interests of the customers are solely con-
sidered.^ That there was a fall of credit even before the Plague

^ That the customs levied at
Abydos and Hieron were only on
imports to the capital, and those
levied at Constantinople were on the
cargoes of outgoing ships is my
interpretation of tlie passage in
Procopius, which is not very clear.
The supervisor of the latter was
prol)ably entitled comes commerciorum
{Q.p. Panchenko, op. cit. 155), and the
office w^as held by a Syrian named
Addaeus (w’ho w'as afterwards, in 551,

Pr. Prefect of the East, Nov. 129).

^ The motive of the monopoly of
the manufacture of arms {Nov. 85)
was not financial The sale of arms
to private persons was forbidden.

® Procopius, ILA. 20. 1 sqq., and
26. sqq. lie says that the bread
was not only dearer but of worse
quality. His rpnfkdaLOva TipAiaarci
agrees vdth Nov. 122.

4 Nov. 122.

FINANCIAL POLICY

357

is indicated by measures which were taken to protect the in-
terests of the powerful corporation of bankers against their
debtors.^ :

It would probably be rash to infer from the tendency of
interest on loans to rise since a.d. 472 that trade had been
tending to decline.^ The ordinary commercial rate of in-
terest in Justinian’s reign was 8 per cent. ^ On good securities
money could be borrowed at 6 or 6 per cent. Justinian paid
attention to the question of interest and reduced the maximum
12 per cent, which had hitherto been legal, to 8, except in the
case of maritime ventures, where 12 was allowed. But 8 was
allowed only in the case of traders, and 6 was fixed as the maxi-
mum for loans between private persons. In the case of money
advanced to peasants he enacted that only 4 per cent should be
charged, and he forbade senators of illustrious or higher rank
to exact more than 4 per cent.

The coinage of Justinian’s reign, which is exceptionally abun-
dant, may be taken as testifying to a flourishing condition
of commerce. The curious statement in the Secret History
that he depreciated the gold coinage has no confirmation in
the evidence of the extant nomismata^ The number of
Imperial mints was increased, not only in consequence of the
conquest of Africa and Italy, but also by the establishment of
a new centre in the East.^ The minting of gold was confined
to Constantinople, and silver was issued only there and in
Carthage.

If Justinian was blamed for his expenditure on wars, for his
extravagance in building, for the large sums with which he
bought off the hostilities of the northern barbarians, he was
blamed no less for his economies. Some of these may have been
short-sighted and unwise, for instance the curtailments of the

i Nov. 130 (A.D. 535) ; Edict 9 ;
Edict 7 (a.b. 542).

^ See Billeter, GescJi. des Zinsfusses
(pp. 219, 317).

® Tills may bo illustrated from
papyri, e.g. Pap. GairOjU. Ho. 67126.
Cp.'C.J. 'iv. 32. 26 ; and Nov. HO,
repeating Wo d.?. 106.

^ II.A. 22. 38. In 25. 12, the
Emperor is blamed for the practice of
the money-changers to give only 180

foUes for a nomisma instead of the
normal 210.

^ Under Anastasius there were only
three inin,ts, Constantinople, Hico-
media, and Antioch ; under Justin I,
Thessalonica and Cyzlcus were added.
Under Justinian money w'as coined
also at Alexandria and Cherson ; and
in the west, at Carthage, in Sicily
(Oatana ?), at Eome and Ravenna.
See Wroth, Imj>. Byz. Comst i. xv.

S58 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

public Post, to wliicli attention has already been called, and the
reduction of the intelligence department.^ But much greater
dissatisfaction was caused by economies which to an impartial
posterity seem unquestionably justified. Such, for instance,
were the abolition of the consulship, which had ceased to perform
any useful function, the reduction of expenses on public amuse-
ments, the discontinuance of the large distribution of corn which,
since the time of Diocletian, had pauperised the proletariate of
Alexandria.^ Another economy was the diminution of the pen-
sions of the officials serving in the central bureaux, which had
hitherto cost the treasury about 10,000 lbs. of gold (£450,000),
a measure which must have been extremely unpopular.*^

The parsimony of Justinian which seems most open to criticism
was in the treatment of the army. He reduced its numbers and
tried to reduce the expenses on its upkeep. The names of the
dead remained on the lists, new soldiers were not recruited, and
there was no promotion. The old practice of Imperial donatives
every five years was discontinued. Pay was always in arrears,
and was often refused altogether on various pretexts. No sooner
had a soldier received his pay than the logothete appeared with
a bill for taxes. We are told that Justinian appointed the worst
sort of men as logothetes, and they received a commission of
one-twelfth on all they managed to collect. After the peace of
A.B. 645 there appears to have been a considerable reduction of
the frontier forces in the East.^

^ Procopius {H.A. 30. 12 sqq.) says
tliat the secret service ceased to
exist, but this is assuredly an ex-
aggeration. These spies {KaraaKoirot)
used to penetrate into the palace of
the Persian king as merchants or on
other pretexts. Procojhus ascribes
the successes of Ghosroes to the fact
that he improved his secret service,
while Justinian refused to spend
money on his.

^ Tb. 26. 40 sqq. This was done
when Hephaestus w^as Augustal pre-
fect ; he is said to have enriched
himself and the treasury by mono-
polising in his own hands the sale
of all provisions in the city. He-
phaestus is probably the same person
who w'as Pr. Pref. of the East c.
A.D. 550-651 (John Lyd. De mag. iii.
30).

® H.A. 24. 30 sqq. iv liv^avrii^

show's that the provincial bureaux
are not included. We have no means
of judging w'liethcr the jiensions W'ere
excessive, and the reduction may
not have l.>een consideral^Ie ; f<.>r wn
cannot trust Procopius wdieii he says
rovTmv ai>rov<i aTroaTepijo'as erx^obv ri
dTaprojv, as liyperlxtie is a note of
the Secret History. But the com-
plaints of John Lydus {De may. iii.
67) bear out the statement.

^ The decline of the army is the
subject of H.A. 24. Procopius speaks
as if the limitaiiei w'ero iinally
abolished after a.d. 545, but so far
as his criticisms liave a foundation
they ap])ly only to the East (see
Hartmann, Byz. VerivaUiinrf in Italicn.,
p. 151 ; Panchenko, op, ci't. 117 sqq.).
Maspero has made it })rol,)ab]e that
the total of the forces stationed in
Egypt W'as fn^m 29,000 to 30,000

XXI

359

FINANCIAL POLICY

That the efficdeiicy of Justinian’s administration degenerated
in the latter part of his reign there is every sign. After the
deaths of Theodora and Germanus he concentrated Ms attention
more and more on theology~m caelum mens omnis. erat — and was
inclined to neglect pubHc affairs and postpone decisions. When
he died it was probably the general opinion that it was high time
for a younger man to take the helm and restore, above all, the
financial situation. For the fisc was exhausted.^

men, of Avhom about 5000 were in idle life in splendid uniform invested
Libya and Tripolitana. Only two it in purchasing a post in the guards,
or three thousand of these were and the high pay was a satisfactory
/:acrrp7?crtaroij UmiMnei (Or mU, de annuity for their capital (cp. Agatliias,
rSgy'ptef 117). Maspero thinks that v. 15). Procopius says that in

when Agathias (v. 13) gives the total Justin’s reign 2000 “supernumeraries”
strength of the army as 150,000, he were added in order to obtain the
does not include the limitanei (ib. entrance fees, and that Justinian on
119). Justinian appears to have his accession disbanded them without
formed a new corps of Palace guards compensation ( 16 . 20).
called Scribones ; it is at least in ^ See Corippus, In laud. lust. li.

his reign that we first hear of them 260 sqq . :

(Agathias, iii. 14). They were often plurima simt vivo nimium aeglecta

employed on special missions in the parente

provinces. The Saliolarian guards "“locus'’* contaixit debita

(3500 in number) had now ceased to reddere quae miseris inoti piet-atc
have any military significance ; the}^ paramus.

were employed purely for parade quod luiiuy ob senium factumve actumve

purposes. Young men who had a tempore lustini correetiim gaudeat orbis.

little money and desired to lead an nulla fuit iam cura senis, etc.

CHAPTER XXII

ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY
§1. Ecclesiastical Legislation

Theoretically tlie Emperors were as completely competent to
legislate in all religious as in all secular afiairs. How far tliey
made use of this right was a question of tact and policy. Xo
Emperor attempted to order the whole province of sacred con-
cerns. Questions of ritual, for instance, were left entirely to the
clergy, and the rulers, however bent they might he on having
their own way in questions of doctrine, always recognised that
doctrine must be decided by ecclesiastical councils. The theory,
which was afterwards to prevail in western Europe, of a trenchant
separation between the spiritual and temporal powers was still
unborn, and ecclesiastical affairs were ordered as one department
of the general civil legislation. In framing laws concerning the
organisation of the Church, it was a matter of course that the
Patriarch of Constantinople should be consulted, but it is
significant that such contributions were often addressed not to
the Patriarch or the bishops, but to the Praetorian Prefect of
the East, whose duty it was to make them publicly known
throughout the Empire.

Justinian took his responsibilities as head of the Church more
seriously than any Emperor had hitherto done, and asserted his
authority in its internal affairs more constantly and systematic-
ally. It was his object to identify the Church and State more
intimately, to blend them, as it were, into a single organism, of
which he was himself the controlling brain. We must view in
this light his important enactment that the Canons of the four
great Ecumenical Councils should have the same validity as

CHAP, xxn ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION

361

Imperial laws.^ And we can see in his legislation against heretics
and pagans that he set before himself the ideal of an Empire
which should be populated only by orthodox Christians. He
determined ^' to close all the roads which lead to error and to
place religion on the firm foundations of a single faith,’’ ^ and
for this purpose he made orthodoxy a requisite condition of
citiKenship. He declared that he considered himself responsible
for the welfare of his subjects, and therefore, above all, for
securing the salvation of their souls ; from this he deduced the
necessity of intolerance towards heterodox opinions.^ It was the
principle of the Inquisition. None of his predecessors had taken
such a deep personal interest in theology as Justinian, and he
surpassed them all in religious bigotry and in the passion for
uniformity.

The numerous ecclesiastical laws of Justinian, which do not
concern doctrine or heresy, deal with such topics as the election
of bishops, the ordination of priests and deacons, the appoint-
ment of the abbots of monasteries, the management of Church
property, the administration of charitable institutions, such as
orphanages, hostels, and poorhouses, the privileges and duties
of the clergy.^ We learn from this legislation the existence of
various abuses, simony,^ for instance, and illiterate priests and
bishops. Little regard was shown for freedom in the restrictive
enactments which were intended to prevent bishops from
neglecting their sees ; ® and the clergy were strictly forbidden
to indulge in the pastimes of attending horse-races or visiting
the theatres.^

But the most important feature in this section of Justinian’s
legislation is the increasing part which the bishops were called
upon to play in civil and social administration. They were
gradually taking the place of the cw probably

served as a more powerful check on unjust or rapacious provincial

^ O.J. i. 3. 44 ; Xov. 131. of the sae. E.g, if the income was

2 Procopius, Acd. i. 1. not less than £1350, the total of the

^ G.J, i. 5. is. fees amounted to £250 {Noi\ 123, § 3).

^ ON. i. titles 1-13, and 33 Novels ® 16. § 9. Bishops wore forbidden
are devoted to ecclesiastical laws. to leave their sees without permission

® To remedy bribery at episcopal of their metropolitan, and they could

elections, a definite tariff of fees was only visit Coiistantinoplo with leave
fixed, to be paid by the new bishop of the Patriarch or by order of the
to those who ordained him and their Emperor,
assistants, according to the income ^ G,J. L 4. 34.

362 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

governors.^ In certain matters of business they could act instead
of the governor himself.^ They were expected to take part in
overseeing the execution of public works, to take charge of the
rearing of exposed infants, to enforce the laws against gambling.
When Justinian issued a law against the constraint of any
woman, slave or free, to appear on the stage, it was to the
bishops that he addressed it, and they were charged to see that
it was enforced, even against a provincial governor/^ It was on
their vigilance that the government chiefly relied for setting the
law in motion against heretics.

On any theory of the relations of Church and State, it would
have been reasonable that, as the State granted to the bishops
judicial and administrative authority and to the clergy special
privileges, it should insist on their fulfilling certain qualifications
and should lay down rules binding on the clerical order. It was
not so clear why the Emperor should consider it his business to
regulate the conduct of monastic institutions,^ seeing that they
discharged no function in the political organisation and were
established only for those who desired to escape the tempta-
tions, the troubles, and the labours of social life. He
justifies his action in one of his laws, where he expresses the
superstitious belief that the prosperity of the State could be
secured by the constant prayers of inmates of monasteries. If
they, with their hands pure and their souls bare, offer to God
prayers for the State, it is evident that it will be well with the
•army, and the cities will prosper and our land will bear fruits
and the sea will yield us its products, for their prayers will
propitiate God’s favour towards the whole State.” The great
pestilence and numerous earthquakes were a commentary on
the Emperor’s faith, which he was not likely to take to heart.

It has been observed that his legislation '^became in the
Byzantine Empire the true foundation of monastic institutions.” ^
During his reign the number of monasteries enormoiiskv in-
creased,’^ and in later times the growth of these parasitic institii-

^ Nov. 80. The defensores (hdim) ® Nov. 133, § 5 (a.d. 539).

stiH existed {ib. and Nov. 15). 6 Diehl, JustinieJi, 503. For a

^ C.J. i. 4. 21, and 31. Other . general picture of inonastieism in this
examples of the use which the govern- age, see the whole (4iaptor (499 ,sqq.}.
ment made of bishops will be found In a.d. 536 there were sixty-seven

in this title. monasteries for men in Oonsta.ntino])le

® lb. 33. and its suburbs (Mamsi, viii. 1007 .s(jg.).

^ The chief regulations will be found For the plan of the monastery of
in Nov. 5, 123, 133. Saint Simeon, between Antioch and

'I,

xxu ECCLESIASTICAL LEGISLATION 363

tioiis multiplied more and more. 'Ricli men and women vied
with eacli otlier ill adding to their number.

In Syria and Palestine' monastic houses were particularly
numerous and' powerful, . and: 'the oriental monks enjoyed and
merited a higher reputation-' .than . any others for .extreme.: as-
ceticism. .-A. certain number of- cells were reserved in the.Syrian
convents for those' who, not content with the ordinary rule and
desiring a more rigorous mortification of the: flesh, yet preferred
the shelter of a monastery: tn the life of the recluses who lived
isolated in. deserts; or .mountains. .■ The historian, John of Ephesus,
has.^left- us a gallery of .contemporary .eastern monks, who' were
distinguished by their ■ piety or eccentricities,, :and his '.portraits
.are. sufficiently repulsive,. 'They 'exercised' . an . extraordinary ' in-
fluence not only over, .the common people,,.biit. .even., at court,
and could indulge with impunity ' in' the .most audacious , language
in the Imperial .|)resence. . For instance, when ;proceedings were
taken -against the ' Monophy sites in Egypt in .k.T}. 536, Maras, a
heretical anchoret of the most savage manners, arrived at
Constantinople for the purpose of loading the Emperor and
Empress with vituperation. .Admitted to an audience he used
language which would have been almost incredible if it had been
flung at persons of low degree; his panegyrist declines to re-
produce it. But the Emperor and Empress, if astonished, did
not resent the insults of the ragged hermit ; they said that he
was a truly spiritual philosopher.^

One important change in diocesan adininistratioii was intro-
duced by Justinian. He divided the ecclesiastical vicariate of
Illyricum into two parts for the sake of increasing the prestige
and importance of Justiniana Prima, as he had renamed the
town of Sciipi, which was close to his own birthplace. Having
first transferred the seat of the Praetorian Prefect of Illyricum
from Thessalonica to Justiniana, he resolved to increase the
prestige of his home ^ by making it also a great ecclesiastical
centre. The bishop of Justiniana was raised to the rank not
only of a metropolitan but of an archbishop, and his diocese

Aleppo, see Vogiie, Sijrie centrale, PI. the Thebaid. Another Wonophysite
139-150 ; for ''that of Tebessa in monk, Zooras, about the same time
Byzacena, Diehl, LLifrique hyzantine, used similarly audacious language to
Pi. xi. Justinian and made the Emperor

^ John Epli. Comm, de b. or. c. 37. very angiy {ib. c. 2).

Maras was a native of the region ® Nostrum patriam augere cujnemteSj
of Amida, but he set up a cell in Noi\ ii (a.d. 535) ; 131, 3 (a.d. 545).

364 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

corresponded to tlie civil diocese of Dacia, with its seven provinces.
He was independent of Thessalonica, but the see of Tliessalonica
retained its authority over the rest of Ill 5 U!icum, the diocese of
Macedonia. This arrangement, which was carried out with the
consent of the Pope, did not change the position of ecclesiastical
Illyricum as a vicariate of the Eoman see. The only difference
was that the Pope was now represented by two vicars.^

§ 2. Persecution of Heretics and Samaritans

The measures which Justinian adopted to suppress heresy
were marked by a consistency and uniformity which contrast
with the somewhat hesitant and vacillating policy of previous
Emperors. Laying down the principle that from those who
are not orthodox in their worship of God, earthly goods should
also be withheld,” he applied it ruthlessly. Eight belief was
made a condition for admission to the service of the State, and
an attestation of orthodoxy from three witnesses was required.®
Heretics were debarred from practising the liberal professions of
law and teaching.^ But Justinian went much further in the
path of persecution. He deprived heretics of the common rights
of citizenship. They were not allowed to inherit property ;
their testamentary rights were strictly limited; they could not
appear in court to bear witness against orthodox persons. On
the other hand, they were liable to the burdens and obligations
of the curiales.^ The spirit of the Imperial bigot is shown by
a law which deprived a woman, if she belonged to a heretical
sect, of her legal rights in regard to her dowry and property.
The local priests and officials were to decide whether she was
orthodox, and attendance at Holy Communion w^as to be regarded
as the test.® Here we have a foretaste of the Inquisition.

It is noteworthy that the sect of the Montanists in Phrygia
was singled out for particularly severe treatment. But the
penalty of death was inflicted only on two classes, the Manichaeans,
whom the government had always regarded as the worst enemies
of humanity, and heretics who, having been converted to the

^ For details see Zeilier, Origines
chrit. 385 sqq. ; Duchesne, J^glises
'sep. Souju (tlskub) remained a metro-
politan see till 1914.

2 GJ, i. 5. 12, 5 (A.D. 527).

3 Ib, i. 4. 20.

* Ib, i. 5. 12, and 18.

5 lb, I 5. 12 ; 45.

® Rov. 109 (a.d. 541).

XXII

365

PERSECUTION OB HERETICS

true creed, relapsed into their errors.^ Perhaps these severe laws
were not executed thoroughly or consistently, but we have a
contemporary account of a cruel persecution of Manichaeans,
which occurred perhaps about a.b. 545.^

Many people adhered to the deadly error of the Manichaeans. They
used to meet in houses and hear the mysteries of that impure doctrine.
When they were arrested, they were taken into the 2>resence of the Emperor
who hoped to convert them. He disputed with them but could not convince
them. With Satanic obstinacy they cried fearlessly that they were ready
to face the stake for the religion of Manes and to suffer every torture.
The Emperor commanded that their desire should be accomplished. Thej^
were burned on the sea that they might be buried in the waves, and their
property was confiscated. There were among them illustrious women,
nobles, and senators.

The most important of all the heretical sects, the Monophysites,
were hardly affected by the general laws against heretics. Their
numbers and influence in Egypt and in Syria would have rendered
it impossible to inflict upon them the disabilities which the laws
imposed on heretics generally, and they were protected by the
favour of the Empress. Moreover, the Emperor’s policy vacil-
lated ; he was engaged throughout his reign with doctrinal
questions arising from the Monophysitic controversy, and the
position of the Monophysites will most conveniently be considered
in that connexion.

The Jews and Samaritans were subject to the same disabilities
as heretics.® This severity was followed by the destruction of
the Samaritan synagogues, and a dangerous revolt broke out in
Samaria in the summer of a.b. 629.^ Christians were massacred ;
a brigand named Julian was proclaimed Emperor ; and the
rising was bloodily suppressed.^ The desperate remnant of the
people then formed a xflan to betray Palestine to the Persians,®
but their treachery appears to have had no results. Twenty
years later, at the intercession of Sergius, bishop of Caesarea, and
his assurance that the Samaritans had been converted from their

^ Cp. esp. God. J. i. 5. 20, and
Procopius, 11. A. 11.

2 John of Ephesus, H.E. Part; II.
(Nau), p. 481. The date is uncertain,
but the notice precedes events dated
to the nineteenth year of Justinian.

3 G.J. i. 5. 12, 17, IS.

^ John Mai xviii. p. 445 ; Proco-
pius, il).

3 Malalas says that 20,000 were
siain and 20,000 (of both sexes)
given to the Saracens, who assisted
the duke of Palestine in the war, to
be sold into slavery. Procopius says
that 100,000 were reported to have
perished-

® John Mai. xviii. p. 455, states
that 50,000 fled to Persia and offered
their aid to Kavad,

366 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

evil ways and would remain tranquil, the Emperor removed
some of the Givil disabilities which he had imposed^ But the
hopes of Sergius were not realised. Samaritans and Jews, joined
in a sanguinary revolt at Caesarea, and murdered Stephaiius, the
proconsul of Palestine.^ Their ringleaders were executed, but
the Samaritans were refractory and abandoned the pretence of
having been converted to Christianity. The civil disabilities
which had been imposed on them by Justinian were renewed by
his successor.^ The Samaritan troubles are a black enough page
in the history of persecution.

The Jews were treated less harshly. Though the lawgiver
regarded them as '' abominable men who sit in darkness/' and
they were excluded from the State-service, they were not deprived
of their civil rights. Justinian recognised their religion as legiti-
mate and respectable so far as to dictate to them how they should
conduct the services in their synagogues.'^ He graciously per-
mitted them to read aloud their Scriptures in Greek or Jjatin or
other versions. If Greek was the language they were enjoined
to use the Septuagint, which is more accurate than all others/'
but they were allow^ed to use also the translation of Aquila.^ On
the other hand, he strictly forbade the use of the Deuterosis,”
which he described as the invention of uninspired mortals.® This
amazing law is thoroughly characteristic of the Imperial theo-
logian,

§ 3. The Suppression of Paganism

We saw in a former chapter how throughout the fifth century
the severe laws against paganism were not very strictly enforced.

^ Nov. 129 (a, D. 551). Pharisees. S. Kraiiss in an art. on

^ John Mai. ih. p. 487. Justinian in the Jetvish Bncychypae.dla^

^ Nov. 144. and in his Sludien r:ur byz.Rkii'iclmi

^ A'or. 146 (a.d. 553). Gesch. (1914), contended that by

^ Aqnila, a natlYe of Pontus, eon-^^ must be understood the

verted to Judaism (hence called by whole of the oral teachinj^, and re-
Justinian d\\6<pv\os)i published his peated this view in Jewish Guanlhm^
translation in the second century A.P. March 26, 1920, p. 4; but in the
Bis aim was to produce a version same periodical, April 2, 1920, p. 11,
more literal and accurate than the J. Abrahams maintains that what
Septuagint ; it was so literal that it Justinian for]>ade. under Deuterosis
was often obscure. was “the traditional Rablutuc trans-

® It is uncertain what precisely latlon of the Law — the Targum.”
the Deuterosis means. The term The words of the legislator certainly
occurs several times in Jerome. In seem to imply a book. Mr. F. Colson
his Comm, m Matih. c. 22 (P.L. xx\i. has suggested to me that the Mishna
p. 165) he explains (5ecre/)c6o-ets as the is meant: deuterosis has the same
traditions and observations of the meaning, “ repetition.”

XXII SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM 367

So long as there was no open scandal, men could still believe in
the old religions and disseminate anti-Christian doctrine. This
comparatively tolerant attitude of the State terminated with
the accession of Justinian, who had firmly resolved to realise
the conception of an empire in which there should be no differences
of religious opinion. Paganism was already dying slowly, and
it seemed no difficult task to extinguish it entirely. There were
two distinct forms in which it survived. In a few outlying
places, and in some wild districts where the work of conversion
had been imperfectly done, the population still indulged with
impunity in heathen practices. To suppress these was a matter
of administration, reinforced by missionary zeal ; no new laws
were required. A more serious problem w^as presented by the
Hellenism which prevailed widely enough among the educated
classes, and consequently in the State-service itself. To cope
with this Justinian saw that there wns need not only of new
administrative rigour, but of new legislation. He saw that
Hellenism was kept alive by pagan instructors of youth, especially
in teaching establishments which had preserved the Greek tradi-
tions of education. If the evil thing was to be eradicated, he
must strike at these.

Not long after his accession, he reaffirmed the penalties
which previous Emperors had enacted against the pagans, and
forbade all donations or legacies for the purpose of maintaining
“ Hellenic impiety,’’ while in the same constitution he enjoined
upon all the civil authorities and the bishops, in Constantinople
and in the provinces, to inquire into cases of pagan supersti-
tion.^ This law was soon followed by another which made it
illegal for any persons “ infected with the madness of the unholy
Hellenes ” to teach any subject, and thereby under the pretext
of education corrupt the souls of their pupils.^

The persecution began with an inquisition at Constantinople.
Many persons of the highest position were accused and con-
demned.^ Their property, was confiscated, and some may have

^ C.J. L 11. 9, evidently tlie law stitutioii i. 15. 18, seems to be later
of Justinian wliicli preceded the trials (cj). § 4 firjos su SidacrKdXov

at Constantinople, which apparently Traideias).

began (John J^lal xviii. 449) in the ^ John Hal ib., but Theophanes,
last months of 52S. a.m. 6022, gives the fuller text of

- C.J. I IL 10, probably a.d. 429. Malalas. Asclepiodotiis, ex-prefect,
One of the x>rovisioiis is the penalty took poison. xMalalas says that
of death for apostates. The con- Thomas, Phocas, and the others

S68

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

been put to death ; one committed suicide. Among those who
were involved were Thomas the Quaestor and Phocas, son of
Cratenis. But Phocas, a patrician of whose estimable character
ve have a portrait drawn by a contemporary,^ was speedily
pardoned, for, as we saw, he was appointed Praetorian Prefect
of the Bast after the Mka riot.

Some of the accused escaped by pretending to embrace the
Christian faith, but we are told that not long afterwards they
were convicted of offering libations and sacrifices and other
unholy practices.’’ ^ There was, in fact, a second inquisition in
Am. 546. On this occasion a heretic was set to catch the pagan.
Through the zeal of John of Ephesus, a Monophysite, who was
head of a Syrian monastery in the suburb of Sycae, a large
number of senators, “with a crowd of grammarians, sophists,
lawyers, and physicians,” were denounced, not without the use
of torture, and suffered whippings and imprisonment. Then
“ they were given to the churches to be instructed in the Christian
faith.” One name is mentioned : Phocas, a rich and powerful
patrician, who, loiowing that he had been denounced, took poison.
The Emperor ordered that he should be buried like an ass
without any rites. We may suspect that this was the same
Phocas, son of Craterus, who had been involved in the earlier
inquest and knew that death would be the penalty of his relapse.^
There was yet another pagan scandal in the capital in a.d. 659 ;
the condemned were exposed to popular derision in a mock
procession and their books publicly burned,^

It may be considered certain that in all cases the condemned
were found guilty of actual heathen practices, for instance of

ire\€TLfT't]<jav ; but Tiieophanes has
cn>P€\7]<pd't](Tav, evidently the right read-
ing, leaving their fate open. The
fact that Procopius does not mention
executions in the brief passage where
he refers to the persecution of pagans
(H.A. 11 aLKLi'6/jL€i'6s re rd crdjjfjLara
Kai ra Xtjil'ofJiei'os) must make

us hesitate to accept the text of
Malalas. Those who were executed
must have been condemned as
apostates. It is to he observed that
Thomas was still Quaestor in April
529, C.J., De Just, cod, confmna?ido ;
this shows that the investigations
lasted a considerable time.

^ John Lyd. De mag. iii. 72 ; cp.

Procopius, Jl.il. 21. This Phocas is
not to be confused with Phocas who
was Praet. Prefect of Illyrieum in
529 and took part in compiling the
Code (O.J, ib.),

^ ProcojhLis,

3 John Eph., 11. J. Part II. (Nau),
p. 481. The date is given as the
nineteenth j^’ear of Justinian, which
was 546 ; but as John places the
association of Justinian with Justin
in 531 (p. 474), it may be that 550
is the true date. Against this is the
apparent reference of Procopius (see
last note) in a work written in 550.

^ John Mai. ib. p. 491.

XXII

SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM

369

sacrificing or ponring libations in their private houses, on the
altars of pagan deities. Men could still cling to pagan beliefs,
provided they did not express their faith in any overt act.
There were many distinguished people of this kind in the highest
circles at Constantinople, many lawyers and hterary men, whose
infidelity was well known and tolerated. The great jurist
Tribonian, who was in high favour with the Emperor, was an
eminent example. He seems to have made no pretence at dis-
guising his opinions, but others feigned to conform to the State
religion. We are told that John the Cappadocian used some-
times to go to church at night, but he went dressed in a rough
cloak like an old pagan priest, and instead of behaving as a
Christian worshipper he used to mumble impious words the whole
night.^

It can hardly be doubted that by making the profession of
orthodoxy a necessary condition for public teaching Justinian
accelerated the extinction of Hellenism.” Pagan traditions
and a pagan atmosphere were still maintained, not only in the
schools of philosophy, but in the schools of law, not only at
Athens, but at Alexandria, Gaza, and elsewhere. The suppression
of all law schools, except those of Constantinople and Berytus,
though not intended for this purpose, must have affected the
interests of paganism. But philosophical teaching was the great
danger, and Athens was the most notorious home of uncom-
promising Hellenists. After the death of Procliis (a.d. 485) the
Athenian University declined, but there were teachers of con-
siderable metaphysical ability, such as Simplicius and Damascius,
the last scholarch,^ whose attainments can still be judged by their
works.^

The edicts of Justinian sounded the doom of the Athenian
schools, which had a continuous tradition since the days of Plato
and Aristotle. We do not know exactly what happened in
A.D. 429.^ We may suppose that the teachers were warned that

^ Procopius, B.P. i. 2o, 10. Aristotelian philosophy, and we have

2 Proclus was succeeded by Marinus in a Latin translation his “ Solutions
his biographer; then came Isidore, of Questions proposed by King
Hegias, Damascius. Chosroes.”

® The excellent commentaries of John Mai. xviii p. 451 6 atro^

Simplicius on Aristotle are well known. ^a<riXeds decrTriaas Trpjo-ra^Lv ^7r€fjL\f'€v iv
Damascius wrote commentaries on *Adir}vaLs, /ceXei^cra? [xriUva biodcKeLif
Aristotle and a treatise, irepl irpihrm <f)i\o(To(t>iav €^7)y€L<r6aL.

dpxa)//, which are extant. Their OecrTricras seems to refer to (7.J*. i. 11.
colleague, Prisciaii, also wrote on the ' 10,

\Tr\T. TT

^70 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

unless they were baptized and publicly embraced Christianity,
they would no longer be permitted to teach ; and that when
they refused, the property of the schools was confiscated and
their means of livelihood withdrawn.^

This event had a curious sequel. Some of the philosophers
whose occupation was gone resolved to cast the dust of the
Christian Empire from their feet and migrate to Persia. Of
these the most illustrious were Damascius, the last scholarch of
the Academy, Simplicius, and Priscian. The names of four others
are mentioned, but we do not know whether they had taught at
Athens or at some other seat of learning.^ These men had heard
that king Chosroes was interested in philosophy, and they hoped,
protected by his favour and supported by his generosity, to end
their days in a more enlightened country than their own. But
they were disappointed. Chosroes was flattered by their arrival
and begged them to remain. But they soon found the strange
conditions of hfe intolerable. They fell homesick, and felt that
they would prefer death on Eoman soil to the highest honours
the Persian could confer. And so they returned. But the king
did them a great service. In his treaty with Justinian in a.d. 532
he stipulated that they should not be molested or forced to
embrace the Christian faith. We are told that they lived
comfortably for the rest of their lives, and we know that

^ The provision in OJ, ib. § 2
€K rod 5r}fjt.0(riov (rLr'/}<T€Ct}s diro-
XaijCLv avrotj^ would hardly apply,
as it refers only to grants from the
fisc. But the seizure of the endow-
ments might be covered by i. 11. 9,
whereby it is provided that all
property bequeathed or given for the
maintenance of Hellenic impiety
should be seized and handed over to
the municipality. In case this law
was applied, Athens at least had the
benefit of the property which the
Academy and the Lyceum had ac-
cumulated. Damascius, Vita Isidori,
§ 158, says that in the time of Proelus
the revenue of the Academy was
1000 solidi (£625), or somewhat more.
The closing of these schools — which
was the result of Justinian’s general
laws, not of any edict aimed specially
at Athens — has been discussed by
Hertzberg, Qesch. Grieolimlands unter
der Tom,. IlerrscJiaft, iii. 538 sgq, ;
Gregorovius, Ge^sek. der JStadt Athene

i. 54 sqq. ; Paparrigopulos, 'lo-r. rod
’EXX. Wvom, iii. 174-175 ; Diehl, Jm-
tinien, 562 sqq.

2 It has been generally assumed
that they were all xX.thenian professors,
but Agathias, who is our authority,
does not say so (ii. 30). The others
were Eulamios of Phrygia, Hermeias
and Diogenes of Phoenicia, and
Isidore of Gaza, all otherwise un-
known. Suidas, s.v. TrptV/Seis, says
that they accompanied Areobindiis,
who was sent as envoj^ to Persia ;
and Clinton {sub a.d. *532) accepts
this, not perceiving that Suidas
transferred to the philosophers what
Agathias had said about the impostor
Uranius (ii. 29). As Chosroes came
to the throne in September 531,
Clinton perhaps rightly places their
journey after that date. Gregorovius
notes that the Pythagorean number
of the seven philosophers is somewhat
suspicious.

XXII

SUPPRESSION OF PAGANISM

371

Simplicius was still writing pMlosopliical works in the later
years of Justinian.^

In western Asia Minor, in the provinces of Asia, Phrygia,
Lydia, and Caria, there was still a considerable survival of pagan
cults, not only in the country regions, but in some of the towns,
for instance in Tralles. In a.b. 542 John of Ephesus, the Mono-
physite whose activity in hunting down the Hellenes at Con-
stantinople has already been noticed, was sent as a missionary
to these provinces to convert the heathen and to put an end to
idolatrous practices. He tells us in his Ecclesiastical History
that he converted 70,000 souls. The temples were destroyed ;
96 churches and 12 monasteries were founded. Justinian paid
for the baptismal vestments of the converts and gave each a
small sum of money (about 4s. ).^

In Egypt, in the oasis of Augila, the temple dedicated to Zeus
Ammon and Alexander the Great still stood, and sacrifices were
still offered. Justinian put an end to this worship and built a
church to the Mother of God.^ At Philae the cult of Osiris and
Isis had been permitted to continue undisturbed. This toleration
was chiefly due to the fact that the Blemyes and Nobadae, the
southern neighbours of Egypt, had a vested interest in the
temples by virtue of a treaty which they had made with Dio-
cletian. Every year they came down the river to worshij) Isis
in the island of Elephantine ; and at fixed times the image of
the goddess was taken up the river in a boat to the land of the
Blemyes that it might give them oracular answers, and duly
brought back to the temple.^ Justinian would tolerate this
indulgence no longer. Early in his reign he sent Narses the
Persarmenian to destroy the sanctuaries. The priests were
arrested and the divine images sent to Constantinople.® Much
about the same time the Christian conversion of the Nobadae
and Blemyes began.

Justinian was undoubtedly successful in hastening the dis-
appearance of open heathen practices and in suppressing anti-

^ Agatliias, ii. 31 6 os e£s proselytes. John Eph., Part IL

TO dvfxriph re /cal jjdLcrrov dTrereXe^TTjcrev. (Nail), p. 482 ; Part III. iii. cc. 36-37 ;
For -the date of the commentaries Comm. de. h. or. cc. 40, 43, 51, etc,
of Simplicius on Aristotle’s De caelo ® Procopius, Aed. vi. 2.
and Physka cp, Clinton, F.B. ii. * Priscus, Be %. 11, p. 583.

pp. 328-329, ® Procopius, B.P. i. 19. The death

2 Of the new ehurclies 55 were of Narses in 543 gives a posterior
paid for by the treasury, 41 by the limit of date.

372 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

Cliristian philosophy. Although in some places, like Heliopolis,^
paganism may have survived for another generation., and although
there were inquisitions under his immediate successors, it may
be said that by the close of the sixth century the old faiths were
virtually extinct throughout the Empire.

§4. Persecution of Monophysites under Justin

Throughout his reign one of Justinian’s chief preoccupations
was to find an issue from the dilemma in which the controversy
over the natures of Christ had placed the Imperial government.
Concord with Eome and the western churches meant discord in
the East ; toleration in the East meant separation from Rome.
The solution of the problem was not rendered easier by the fact
that the Emperor was a theologian and took a deep interest in
the questions at issue on their own account apart from the
political consequences which were involved.

In the abandonment of the ecclesiastical policy of Zeno and
Anastasius, in order to heal the schism with Rome, Justinian,
co-operating with Vitalian and the Patriarch John, had been a
moving spirit. The greater part of the correspondence between
Pope Hormisdas and the personages at Constantinople who took
part in the negotiations has been preserved.^ The main question
was settled by a synod which met in the capital in 618 and
decided that the Monophysite bishops should be expelled from
their sees. The only difficulty which occurred in the negotiations
with the Pope regarded the removal of the name of Acacius
from the diptychs of the Church. There was a desire at Con-
stantinople to spare the memory of the Patriarch, but Hormisdas
was firm,^ and in April a.d. 619 the Patriarch despatched to the
Pope a memorandum, in which he anathematised Acacius and
all those who had participated with him,' and confessed that the
Catholic faith is always kept inviolable in the Apostolic see.” ^

^ The great temple of Baal had letter of Sei^tember 7, received Oe-
been converted into a church ; but ceniber 20, and the Pope’s letters,
sacrifices were still performed there Bpp. 145, 148, 140.
in the sixth century. In a.d. 555 * Bp. 159. The Pope Jiad caircady

it was ruined by ligli tiling. John sent deputation of bishops to
Eph., II.B. Part II. p. 490. See Diehl, Constantinople (January), and the
Justinien, pp. 550-551. deacon, Dioscorus, who attended them

2 It vdll be found in the OollecHo describes their Journey by the Egna-
Avellana, Ep'p- 142-181. tian Way, their reception at the

® See ih. Bp. 147. Justinian’s tenth milestone from the capital by

XXII

PERSECUTION OF MONOPHYSITES

373

The names of five Patriarchs, Acacius, Fravitta, Eiiphemius,
Macedonius, Timotheus, and of two Emperors, Zeno and Anas-
tasius, were solemnly erased from the diptychs of the Church of
Constantinople, and it only remained for the Pope to remind
the Emperor that he had still to take measures to '' correct
the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria.^

Correction meant persecution, and the Emperor did not
hesitate. The great Monophysite leader Severus had already
been expelled from Antioch, and more than fifty other bishops
driven into exile, including Julian of Halicarnassus, Peter of
Apamea, and Thomas of Daras. The heretical monastic com-
munities in Syria were dispersed and the convents closed. Ke-
sistance led to imprisonment and massacres. Such measures did
not extirpate the heresy. In Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and the
Mesopotamian deserts the Monophysites persisted in their errors,
hoping for better days. Severus himself was able to live quietly
in Alexandria.^

The persecution continued throughout the reign of Justin.
But Justinian determined to essay a difterent policy. He did
not despair of finding a theological formula which would reconcile
the views of moderate Monophysites with the adherents of
the dogma of Chalcedon. For there was after all a common
basis in the doctrine of Cyril, which the Monophysites acknow-
ledged and the Dyophysites could not repudiate. For the Council
of Chalcedon had approved the views of Cyril, and Severus
would hardly have admitted that his own doctrine diverged
from Cyril’s, if rightly interpreted.

The whole question was being studied anew by a theologian
whom modern authorities regard as the ablest interpreter of the
Chalcedonian Creed, Leontius of Byzantium.’^ In his youth he

Vitalian, Pompeius, Justinian, and title by Kugamer, written from tlxe
many other illustrious persons, and Catholic point of view and ti*aversing
their presentation to the Emperor successfully some of the conclusions
in the presence of the Senate (Up. of Loofs.' The earliest work of
167). Leontius was probably the Three

^ Up. 168 (July 9, 519). Books against the Nestorians and

2 For the persecutions see Za- Eutychians {P.G. Ixxxvi. 1267 sqq.),
charias Myt. ix. 4, 5 ; John Eph. which may be dated to a.d. 529-530
E.E. Part li. pp. 407-468, and Comm, (cp. Riagamer, 9 sgq.). The Epilysis
e. 5, p. 35 sqq, c. 8, p. 46 sqq. (cp. pp. of the Syllogisms of Severus (ib, 1915
217-220) ; Ohron, Edess. p. 124-128. sqq.) and the Thirty Chapters against
^ The study of Loofs, Leontius von Severus (P.G. cxxx. 1068 sqq.) may
Byzanz (1887), rescued this theologian have been composed in tlie years
from neglect, and was followed in immediately following. Other works
1894 by a monograph with the same against the Monophysites (P.(?. Ixxxvi.

374 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

had been ensnared in the errors of Nestorianism, but, happily,
guided into the ways of orthodoxy, he lived to write with equal
zeal against Nestorians and Monophysites. He has the distinc-
tion of introducing a new technical term into Greek theology,
enhypostasis, which magically solved the difficulty that had led
Nestorians and Monophysites into their opposite heresies. Ad-
mitting the axiom that there is no nature without a hypostasis,
Leontius said: it does not follow that the subsistence of two
natures in Christ involves two hypostaseis (as the Nestorians say),
nor yet that to avoid the assumi)tion of two hypostaseis we must
assume only one nature with the Monophysites. The truth is
that both natures, the human like the divine, subsist in the same
hypostasis of the Logos ; and to this relation lie gave the name
of enhjpostasis}

Of much greater interest is the fact that in his theological
discussions he resorts to a new instrument, the categories and
distinctions of the Aristotelian philosophy.^ Substance, genus,
species, qualities, play their parts as in the western scholasticism
of a later age. It is not probable that Leontius himself was a
student of Aristotle, but at this period there was a revival of
Aristotelian thought which influenced Christian as well as secular
learning. The ablest exponent of this movement was indeed in
the camp of the heretics, John Philoponus of Alexandria, a
philosopher, and a Monophysite. His writings are said to have
been partly responsible for the development of a theory about
the Trinity, known as Tritheism, which had some vogue at this
period and was ardently supported by Athanasius, a grandson
of the Empress. The Tritheites held the persons of the Trinity
to be of the same substance and One God ; but they explained
the identity of substance as purely generic, in the Aristotelian
sense. Numerically, they said, there are three substances and
three natures, though these are one and equal by virtue of the
unchangeable identity of the Godhead.^

1769 sgq.) and tlie Nestorians (ib. Tarsus and Eugeniiis of Seleucia
1399 sqq.), and the Scholia, a treatise belonged. See John Eph. HE. Part
on Sects, which hears the marks of III. v. 1-12 ; Tiniotheus, De recept.
later editing {ib. 1193 sqq.), m&y be Tiaereticonim, ; j\Iigne, P.(J. Ixxxvi.
later than a.d. 544. p. 64. John Philoponus in his

^ Q-p. ib. 1277 sqq.j 1944. AiaiT7]Tr}^ (“Arbiter’') discussed the

^ See Loofs, op. cit. 60 sqp bases of Tritheism and Monophysit-

® John Ascosnaghes is said to have ism. We possess a philosophical work
been the founder of the Tritheite by him On the Eternity of the World
sect, to which bishops Conon of (against Prochis), written in a.d. 529

Scxii MONOPHYSITIC CONTROVERSIES 375

To return to Leontius, it is a curious fact that notwithstanding
the importance and considerable number of his theological works
contemporary writers never mention him. Modern writers have
indeed proposed to identify him with other persons of the same
name who played minor parts in the ecclesiastical history of his
time, but these conjectures are extremely doubtful.^ His works
were composed during a period of fifteen or twenty years (about
A.I). 630-560), and it is probable that they helped Justinian in
his efforts to interpret the creed of Chalcedon in such a way as
to win Monophysites of the school of Severus.

The Monophysites were far from being a united body. The
ground common to all was the repudiation of the Council of
Chalcedon and the reception of the Patriarch Dioscorus. There
were ultimately twelve different sections,^ but the only division
of much importance was that between the followers of Severus
of Antioch and those of Julian of Halicarnassus. Julian, identi-
fying the substance and qualities of the divinity and humanity
of Christ, deduced that his body was indestructible from the
moment at which it was assumed by the Logos. This doctrine,
which was known as aphthartodoGetism, called forth the polemic
of Leontius ; but no Chalcedonian could have attacked it with
more energy than Severus.^

§ 6. JustiniaiYs attempts at Conciliation, and the Second
Persecution

Justinian began his poHcy of conciliation by allowing the
heretical bishops and monks to return from exile, about a.b. 529.^
His plan was to hold a conference, not a formal synod, at Con-
stantinople, and to have the whole question discussed. Severus
himself resisted all the Emperor’s efforts to induce him to attend
it, but some of his followers came and the conference was held

(cp. xvL 4), and an Exegesis of the Leontius of Byzantium is the

Cosmogony of Moses, dedicated to same as Leontius, a relative of
Sergiu's, Patriarch of Antioch (c. ¥italian, and one of the Scythian
546-549). monks who raised the Theopaschite

^ We may decidedly reject the question at the beginning of Justin’s
identification, maintained by Loofs reign, can neither be proved nor
(op. cit) with Leontius, the Origenist disproved,
of Palestine, who visited Constanti- ^ Timotheus, op. cit. 52 sqq.
noifie with St. Sabas in a.b. 531 and ^ Leontius, Contra Nest et But
was repudiated by him. Cp. the book ii. ; Zach. My t. ix. 9-13.
criticisms of Kugamer, op. cit 58 ^ John Ej)h. H.E. Part II. p. 469;

sqq. The other proposition of Loofs Zacharias Myt. ix. 15.

376 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

in A.D. 63L^ Leontius, representative of the orthodox monks
of Jerusalem, took part in it, and we may possibly identify him
with Leontius of Byzantium, the theologian.^ The conference
led to no results.

The failure of his first attempt did not deter Justinian from
making a second, and he sought a formula of conciliation in what
is known as the Theopaschite doctrine. The thesis that it was
orthodox to hold that '' one of the Holy Trinity sufiered in the
flesh ’’ had been defended in a.b. 619 by four Scythian monks,
in the presence of John the Patriarch and the Papal legates who
had come to restore peace to the Church.^ The formula was
denounced as heretical by the Sleepless monks, who had been so
active in opposing the Trisagion, to which it had a suspicious
resemblance. Justinian was interested in the question, and he
wrote to Pope Hormisdas repeatedly, urging him to pronounce
a decision.^ But the Pope evaded a definite reply. Justinian
recurred to the sub j ect in a.d. 533, with a political ob j ect. He
issued an edict which implicitly asserted that one of the Trinity
suffered in the flesh, and he procured a confirmation of the edict
by Pope John II.^ The Sleepless monks, who refused to accept
the doctrine, were excommunicated.

The recognition of a formula which did not touch the main
issue ^ could not deceive Severus and the Monophysites, and

1 Mansi, viiL 817 sq. ; Jolm Eph. were rnifavonrably impressed by them,
Comm. 203. 245. For the attempt and their secretary Dioscoriis reported
to win Severus cp. Evagrius, iv. 11 ; to the Eope that the monks, w'hom he
Zacharias reproduces the letters of describes as de domo Vitaliajii, were
Severus, ib. 16. The date of the ‘‘adversaries of the praj^ers of all

conference, at which Hypatius, bishop Christians.” The monks , went to

of Ephesus, presided, is 531 (not 533), Borne (summer 519) to submit their
cp. Loofs, op. cit. 283. views to the Pope and remained there

Mansi, ib. Leontius vir vemrabilis till August 520. It has been already
monachus et apocrisiarius patrum in mentioned that Loofs identifies Leon-
sancta civitate cojistitutorum. In the tins, one of these monks, with
MSS. of some of his works Leontius Leontius of Byzantium, but in this

Byz. is described as fiopax^s and theologian’s voluminous works he can

Aepoaro'Kv/j.lTT]^. The same Leontius only find one or two allusions to the

was present at the Synod of 536. Theopaschite dogma [Goritm Nest et

3 The sources for the affair of the 1289, 1377); see Loofs, op. cfL 228.

Scythian monks are their joint letter ^ Coll Avell. cxcvi. 235.

to some African bishops exiled in ® 0,/. i. 1. 6; Mansi, viii. 798.

Sardinia {P.L. ixv. 442 sqq)^ the writ- Cp. Loofs, ib. 260.
ings of their patron John Maxentius ® Loofs says (255): “The Theo-
(P.G. ixxxvi. 73 sqq.)j and the corre- paschite controversy is an event in
spondence of Justin, Justinian, and the history of the doctrine of the

others \rith Hormisdas concerning Trinity far more than in that of

them {Coll. Avellana, Epp. 187, 188, Christology: it ispne of the first signs
196, 216, 232-239). The Papal legates of the victory of Aristotle over Plato.”

XXII

PERSECUTION OF MONOPHYSITES

377

having suffered two defeats the Emperor seems to have been
persuaded by Theodora to allow her to deal with the situation
on other lines. At least it is difficult otherwise to explain what
happened. When Epiphanius, the Patriarch of Constantinople,
died (June, a.d. 635), she procured the election of Anthiimis,
bishop of Trapezus, who was secretly a Monophysite. - He ad-
dressed to Severus a letter containing a Monophysitic confession
of faith; he communicated with Theodosius, the Monophysite
Patriarch of Alexandria,^ and induced the Patriarch of Jerusalem
to follow his example. Severus was invited to the capital and
Theodora lodged him in the Palace.^ The Patriarch of Antioch,
Ephraim, was a firm adherent of Chaleedon, and he sent a
message to Pope Agapetus warning him that heresy was again
in the ascendant. Agapetus, arriving at Constantinople early
in A.D. 536 and received with great honour by Justinian,^
refused to communicate with Anthimus, procured Hs deposition
(March 12), and consecrated Menas as his successor.^ The
Pope died suddenly a few weeks later, but in May Menas
summoned a synod which anathematised Anthimus, Severus,
and others^ and condemned their writings.^ The Emperor
then issued a law confirming the acts of the synod, and
forbidding Anthimus, Severus, and the others to reside in any
large city.^ Severus spent the last years of his life in the
Egyptian desert. Anthimus lived in concealment in Theodora’s
palace, along with other Monophysites like Theodosius of
Alexandria.’^

A new persecution was now let loose in the East. It was
organised by Ephraim of Antioch, who acted as grand inquisitor,
and the Monophysite historians have their tale to tell of

^ Theodosius succeeded Timothy
IV. on February 9 or 11, 535, but
at the same time a rival Patriarch,
Gaiaii (whose views agreed with
those of Julian of Halicarnassus), was
elected and was Patriarch in possession
for 103 days (till May 23 or 25).
See Brooks, B.Z. xii. 494 sqq. For
the letter of Anthimus see Zaeh. Myt.
ix. 21.

2 Ib. ix. 15, 19.

2 Ib. 19, where it is said that
Justinian was particularly pleased to
see Agapetus because he spoke the
same language (Latin).

^ Anthimus had held office for ten

months. Menas succeeded on March
13. Cp. Andreev, Kpl. Pair. 170-173.

5 Mansi, viii. 877 sqq. Peter of
Apamea and Zooras were the others
who were condemned.

® Nov. 42.

7 See John Eph. Comm. pp. 247-248.
At the time of the Council Anthimus
could not be found anywhere (Mansi,
viii. 941). The date of the death
of Severus is probably February 8,
538 (Michael Mel. Ghron. ix. 29). Cp.
Brooks, B.Z. xii. 497 ; Kruger places
it in 543 (art. Monophysiten in Bealenc.
/. protest Theologie).

^7g HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

imprisonments, tortures, and burnings.^ Tlie Emperor, abandon-
ing his policy of conciliation, was perhaps principally moved by the
consideration of his designs on Italy. It was important at this
juncture to make it quite clear that his own 2:eal for orthodoxy
was above cavil and to dispel in the minds of the Italians any
suspicion that he was inclined to coquette with the Monophysites.^
The fall of Anthiinus, the ensuing synod, and the Imperial
edict which confirmed it, were deeply displeasing to Theodora.
But she did not lose heart. She not only protected the heretical
leaders, but she formed the bold design of counteracting her
husband’s policy from Eome itself. The deacon Vigilius was at
this time the apocrisiarius or nuncio of the Eonian see at Con-
stantinople. He was a man of old senatorial family, the son of
a consul, and he had been a favourite of Boniface II., who had
desired to secure his succession to the pontifical throne. On
the death of Agapetus he saw his chance, and Theodora, who
though she knew what manner of man he was, saw her oppor-
tunity. An arrangement was made between them. Theodora,
promised to place at his disposal 200 lbs. of gold (£9000) and
provided him with letters to Belisarius and Antonina, and on
his part, if he did not definitely promise, he led her to believe
that he would repudiate the Council of Chalcedon and re-estab-
lish Anthimus in the see of Constantinople.^ He hastened to
Italy, but he arrived too late. Edng Theodahad had received
early notice of the sudden death of Agapetus, and under his
auspices Silverius had been elected Pope (in June).^

The Empress then wrote to Silverius asking him to procure
the restoration of Anthimus, and on his refusal she determined
to avail herself of the military occupation of Rome by Belisarius

^ Zacharias Myt. (x. 1) and John
Epli. (cp. Co7nm. pp. lU, 134, etc.;
221 sqq.) arc the chief sources on the
persecution. John, bishop of Telia,
died in consequence of the tortures
which he underwent (John Eph.
Comm, c. 24).

2 Dante (Paradiso, vi. 13 sqq,) re-
presents Justinian as holding Mono-
physitic opinions and converted by
Agapetus :

E prima ch* io all* opra fossi attento,

Una natura in Cristo esser, non phie
Credeva, e di tai fede era contento.

Ma il benedetto Agabito, ohe fue
Sommo pastore, alia fode sincera
Mi dirizzd con le parole sue.

® Liberatus, Bmv. 22; Lib, Po7iL,
Vita Silv, p. 292 ; Vita Vigil p. 297,
Victor Tonn. Chron,, sub 542, says
that Vigilius undertook to condemn
the Three Chapters occulta clilrogra'pho
which he gave to Theodora ; that he
was made Pope by Antonina ; and
he quotes a letter of Vigilius (probably
spuiious) in which Antonina is men-
tioned. The reference to the Three
Chapters here is an anachronism.

^ June 8. In Lib. Pont. p. 290, it is.
erroneously said that Silverius held
the pontifical chair for one year, five
months, eleven days, which w'ould give
Hovember 18, 537, for his deposition.

XXII

379

DEPOSITION OF POPE SILVERIUS

to intimidate or, if necessary, to remove tim. She sent secret
instructions to Antonina, probably leaving it to her ingenuity to
concoct a plot against the Pope. Silverius resided at the Lateran
beside the Asinarian Gate, and a letter was fabricated as evidence
that he was in treacherous communication with the Goths and
proposed to admit them into the city. Belisarius summoned
him to the Pincian palace, showed him the danger of his position,
and intimated that he could save himself by obeying the wishes
of the Empress. Silverius refused to yield, and was suffered to
depart, but he took the precaution of withdrawing from the
Lateran to the St. Sabina on the Aventine at a safe distance
from the walls, to prove that he had no desire to communicate
with the enemy. He was called a second time to the generars
presence and went attended by a numerous retinue, including the
deacon Vigilius, who had come to Rome with Belisarius and was
eagerly awaiting the development of events. The chief hall in
the Pincian palace was divided by curtains into three apartments.
The Roman clergy remained in the two outer rooms ; only
Silverius and Vigilius were admitted into the presence of Belisarius.
When the Pope again proved inflexible, two subdeacons entered,
removed his pallium, and clothed him in the garb of a monk.
He was banished to Patara in Lycia. This perfidious act occurred
about the middle of March, and was followed by the election of
Vigilius, who was undoubtedly accessory to it. He was ordained
bishop of Rome on March 29, A.D. 537.^

There is a certain mystery about the subsequent fate of the
unhappy Silverius. The government of Constantinople deemed
it expedient that he should leave Patara and return to Italy.
It is not clear whether Theodora approved or not, but Pelagius,
the Papal nuncio, protested. It would be difficult to believe that
Pelagius was not perfectly aware of the scandalous intrigue to
which Vigilius owed his elevation, and it was certainly in the
interest of Vigilius that he desired to keep Silverius far from
Italy. When Silverius returned, Vigilius appealed to Belisarius
and Antonina. With their permission, he caused his victim to

^ Tlie story is told in Lib. Pont, Vita mediately sent to Greece. Bnt in
Silv. 292-293, and is noticed briefly H.A. (see next note) tlie band of
by Procopius, B.G. i. 25, 13, who only Theodora is recognised. Co7it Mar-
gives the publicly alleged ground celUni, sub 537, gives the official
for the action against Silverius, story: cui {Vitigi) tunc faventem
namely <hs dij irpodocriar is V6 t0ovs papa7n Silvermm Belisarius ah episco-
7rpd<T(roL, and says that he was im- patu summovit

380 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

be conveyed to tlie island of Palmaria, where according to
one account lie died of hunger and exhaustion, while there
is another record that he was done to death by a creature of
Antonina.^

This intrigue of the Empress did not profit her much. The
theological convictions of Pope Vigilius were stronger than his
respect for his plighted word, and, when he had attained the goal
of his ambition by her help, his robust conscience had no scruples
in evading the fulfilment of his promises. By evasions and post-
ponements, and by the assistance of his loyal and tactful nuncio,
Pelagius, who had succeeded in ingratiating himself with Theodora
as well as with Justinian, he managed to avoid a breach with
the Empress, while he addressed to the Emperor and to the
Patriarch letters in which he maintained the condemnation of
the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon.^

§ 6. The Origenistic Heresies in Palestine

Theodosius, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, who
had been deprived of his see in a.b. 536, was succeeded by Paul,
a monk of Tabenna, who was ordained by Menas and went to
Egypt with full powers to cleanse the sees of the Patriarchate
from heretical bishops. Rhodon, the Augiistal Prefect, received
instructions to support him in aU the measures he thought fit to
take.® The submission seems to have been general ; the treat-
ment of Theodosius, who had not been popular, excited little
resentment. But a certain deacon, named Psoes, headed an
opposition to the new Patriarch, at whose instance he was arrested
by Rhodon and died under torture. Theodora was furious and
insisted on an investigation ; Liberius, the Roman senator who
had held high ofl&ces in Italy under the Ostrogothic kings and
came to Constantinople as ambassador of Theodahad,^^ was
appointed to succeed Rhodon, and a clerical commission, in-

^ H.A. 1. 14. Pelagius, who was a man of large

(Antonina, in the interest of Theo- fortune and high social position, had
dora), and 27 riir nvos gonetoConstantinoplewithAgapetus,

yeifiov 6vop.a vTrovpyrjaaPTos ol is dwcip where he reinained far the (Joimeil
TO dyos, ip 5?; Kai rb is ^iX^ipLov of 536, and was appointed nuncio,
dpyaarac }xLCL<Tfj.a. Nothing is said of in succession to Vigilius, in the same
the motive. In Lih, Font. 293, the year.

other account will be found. s Procopius, H.A. 27. 3 ^qq. ; and

^ Coll. AvelL, E'P'p. 92, 93 (also in Liberatus, 22, 23, are the sources.

Migne, F.L. Ixix. p. 21 and p. 25). * See above, p. 164.

XXII

ORIGENISTIC HERESIES

38 :

eluding tlie nuncio Pelagius, was sent with Mm to Alexandria tc
pronounce on the conduct of Paul. The clergy proceeded tc
Gaza, where they held a synod (about Easter, a.b, 642),^ ai
which Pelagius presided, and Paul was found guilty for the deatli
of Psoes and deposed. Rhodon, who fled to Constantinople, was
beheaded, though it is said that he produced thirteen letters oi
the Emperor authorising all that he had done.^

Pelagius returned from Gaza through Palestine, where he fell
in with some monks of Jerusalem who were on the point of start-
ing for Constantinople for the purpose of inducing Justinian to
condemn the opinions of Origen, which were infecting the
monasteries of Palestine.

The revival of Origenistic doctrine in the sixth century
was closely connected with a mystical movement which seems
to have originated in eastern Syria and threatened to taint
Christian theology with speculations of a pronounced pantheistic
tendency. The teacher who was principally responsible for pro-
pagating a Christian pantheism, seductive to many minds, was
Stephen bar-Sudaili, of Edessa, who in consequence of his
advanced opinions was compelled to leave Edessa and betake
himself to Palestine.^ He seems to have been the author of a
book which pretended to have been composed by Ilierotheus,
an Athenian who was alleged to have been a follower of St. Paul
and to have taught Dionysius the Areopagite.^ If this is so,
Stephen was the spiritual father of the famous mystical treatises
which, professing to be the works of Dionysius, were given to the
world early in the sixth century. The author of these fabrica-
tions emphasises his debt to “ Hierotheus,” but he was also
profoundly influenced by the writings of Proclus, the Neoplatonic
philosopher, though this was an influence which naturally he

^ See Mansi, viii. 1164. Ephraim, ® A letter of Jacob of Samg (died
Patriarch of Ajitioch, attended. For 521) to Stephen himself, and another
the date see Diekamp, Die origeni- from Phiioxenns (Xenaias) the Mono-
sticlim. Streitigkeiten, sgq, physite bishop of Mabug (485-518)

^ Procopius, ib. 15 and 18. Prob- to two priests of Edessa, are the
ably Justinian’s letters only instructed chief sources for the little we know
tim Prefect to obey Paul in all things, of Stej^hen. They will be found
though Procopius seems to wish to with English translations in A. L.
suggest that they authorised the Erothingham, Stephen Bar Sudaili.
particular act, Arsenins, a con-
verted Samaritan, who had co- ^ A summary of the work (extant
operated with Paul, was hanged by in a Syriac MS. of the British Museum^
Liberius at the instance of Theodora, is given by Frotliiiigham, op. cit.

382 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

could not acknowledge.^ The learned physician Sergius of
Eesaina translated these mystical treatises into S}n*iac, and it is
noteworthy that Sergius is described as versed in the teaching
of Origen.^

Stephen bar-Sudaili, spending the later years of his life in a
convent near Jerusalem, seems to have provoked by his teaching
the return to Origen’s speculations, which w^as to be for half a
century the burning interest in the monasteries of Palestine.
The ablest of the Origenist party and their leading spirit was a
monk named Nonnus. It is not probable that they went so far
in their speculations as Stephen himself, whose views are briefly
summed up in the treatise of Hierotheiis ” in the following
words :

All nature will be confused with the Father ; nothing will
perish, but all will return, be sanctified, united and confused.
Thus God will be all in all. Even hell will pass away and the
damned return. All orders and distinctions will cease. God will
pass away, and Christ will cease to be, and the Spirit wdll no
longer be called spirit. Essence alone wiU remain.’’ ^

Origen could not have endorsed such doctrine, but it is easy
to understand that any one who entertained these ideas would
find his writings more congenial than those of any other Christian
theologian. There was common ground especially in the rejec-
tion of eternal damnation.^ Among the other heterodox opinions
which the Palestinian heretics derived from Origen were the
persistence of the soul, the creation of the world not by the
Trinity but by creative Nous, the similarity of Christ to men in
strength and substance, the doctrines that in the resurrection our
bodies will be of circular form, that ultimately matter will entirely
disappear and that the kingdom of Christ will have an end.^

^ See Hugo Koch, Pseudo-Pionysius
Areojmgita in semen Beziehungen zum
Nmplatonisfnus und Mysterienwesen^
1900. The Pseudo-Dionysius works
(of which the chief are entitled O 71
the Heavenly Hierarchy ; On the
Bcclesiastical Hierarchy; On Divine
Names ; On Mystic Theology) will be
found in P.0, 3 and 4. These works
were referred to at the conference
with the Severian Monophysites in
531, when Hypatius, bishop of
Ephesus, pointed out that they could
not be genuine (Mansi, viii. 821).
]Put they were soon generally aceepte4

in the Eastern Church. In the ninth
century Michael II. sent a copy to
the Emperor Lewis the Pious/ and
soon afterwards they were translated
into Latin by Joannes Erigena- The
strong influence wliich they exerted
on Thomas Aquinas is well known.

^ Zach. Myt. ix. 19.

® Frothingham, op. cU. p, 99.

^ This view is dealt with mercilessly
in the letter of Philoxenus referred to
above, p. 381, 71 . 3.

^ See the denunciations of Justin-
ian and of the assembly of bishops
in 553 (below, 389, *2).

xxri

ORIGENISTIC HERESIES

383

After the death of St. Sabas (December 5, a.b. 532), the number
and influence of the Origenists grew in the monasteries of Pales-
tine. Two of the most prominent, Theodore Ascidas and
Domitian,^ visited the capital in a.b. 636 to attend the synod
which condemned the Monophysites, and gaining the favour of
the Emperor they were appointed to fill the sees, Domitian of
Ancyra and Theodore of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Both Pelagius
and the Patriarch Menas were anxious to break the influence
which Theodore Ascidas, a man of considerable astuteness and
not over-scrupulous, exerted over Justinian ; and they eagerly
took up the cause of the monks who desired to purge Palestine
of the heresy. Ephraim, the Patriarch of Antioch, held a synod
in summer a.b. 642 to condemn the doctrines of Origen, but the
heretics were so powerful that they induced the Patriarch of
Jerusalem to strike out Ephraim’s name from the diptyclis.

Pelagius and Menas convinced Justinian that it was impera-
tive to take action, and in a.b. 543 the Emperor issued an edict
condemning ten opinions of Origen.^ It was subscribed by
Menas, and the Pope and the other Patriarchs, including Peter
of Jerusalem, signed it also.^ Theodore Ascidas was in a difficult
position. To refuse to accept the edict would have cost him his
bishopric and his influence at court. Tie sacrificed his opinions
and affixed his signature,^ but he had his revenge by raising a
new theological question which was to occupy the stage of
ecclesiastical politics for more than ten years.^

§ 7. Controversy of the Three diapers

There was no theologian whose writings were more offensive
to the Monophysites than Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was
esteemed the spiritual father of Nestorianism. He had also

^ Theodore was a deacon of the bnt afterwards retracted.

New Laura, Domitian was abbot of . ® After the death of Nonnus in

the convent of Martyrius. Mansi, 547, a schism arose among the Ori-

viii. 910, 911 ; Cyril, Vita Sabae (the genists. The Isochristoi of the New

principal source for the Origenistic Laura, who held tliat in the diro-
movement in Palestine), p. 518. KardcrTacas or restitution after the

^ The text will be found in Mansi, general Resurrection men will be

ix. 488 sgq. ; and P.G, Ixxxvi. 945 united with God as Christ is, were

sgq. opposed to the Protoktistai or Tetra-

» Liberatus, 22 ; Cassiodorus, Be dites (of the Laura of Eirminus), whose
inM. div, litt, c. 1 {P,L. Ixx. p. 1111). names and views are obscure. See

Domitian of Ancyra also signed Diekamp, 0 ^ 5 . ciL 60 sqg.

384 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

written against Origen and was detested by the Origenists. To
Theodore Ascidas, who was apparently a secret Monophysite as
well as an Origenist, there could hardly be. a greater triumph
than to procure his condemnation by the Church.

Ascidas, warmly seconded by Theodora^ persuaded the Em-
peror that he might solve the problem which had hitherto
baffled him of restoring unity to the Church, by anathematising
Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings. This, he urged, would
remove the chief stumbling-block that the Monophysites found
ill the Council of Chalcedon. For their objection to that Council
was based far less on its dogmatic formula than on the coun-
tenance which it gave to a Nestorian like Theodore. For if the
formula were consistent with Theodore’s opinions, it would not
be consistent with the doctrine of C 3 rril, and therefore could not
admit of an interpretation that could ever be acceptable to the
Monophysites. What Ascidas proposed was a rectification of the
acts of Chalcedon, so as to make it clear that Chalcedonian
orthodoxy had no leanings to Nestorianism. There were some
other documents which it would be necessary to condemn at the
same time: certain writings of Theodoret against Cyril, and a
letter of Ibas, bishop of Edessa, in which Cyril was censured.
Justinian was impressed by the idea, and acted promptly. In
A.D. 546 he promulgated an Edict of Three Chapters, condemning
(1) Theodore of Mopsuestia and his works ; (2) specified works
of Theodoret ; and (3) the letter of Ibas.^ In the subsequent
controversy the expression Three Chapters ” was perverted to
mean the condemned opinions, so that those who opposed the
edict were said to defend the Chapters.

The eastern Patriarchs were at first unwilling to subscribe to
this edict. It seemed a dangerous precedent to condemn the
dead who could not speak for themselves. And was there any
prospect that anything short of the repudiation of the Council
of Chalcedon would satisfy the Monophysites ? ^ But the pres-
sure of the Emperor induced the four Patriarchs to sign on the
express condition that the Pope should be consulted.

On November 22, a.d. 646, during Totila’s siege of Rome,
Pope Vigilius was in the church of St. Cecilia in Trastevere,
celebrating the anniversary of its dedication. In the middle of

^ The Edict has not been preserved. Biekamp (op. ciL 54) mnild date it to 543.

“ Cp. Duchesne, op. cit 395-396.

XXII CONTROVERSY OF THE THREE CHAPTERS 385

tlie ceremony a body of soldiers arrived, and an officer entered the
church and presented Vigilius with a mandate to start immedi-
ately for Constantinople. He did not stay to finish the service,
but accompanied the soldiers to the Tiber, where a ship was
waiting. The congregation followed him and he pronounced the
blessing which concluded the liturgy, but when the ship started,
the crowd hurled missiles and maledictions. It looked as if the
Pope were being carried off against his will, and general rumour
ascribed his departure from Eome to the machinations of
Theodora. But the sequel does not bear out this explanation.
Vigilius was not taken to Constantinople under constraint. He
went to Sicily, where he remained for ten months and made
arrangements for sending provisions to Eome from the lands
belonging to the pontifical patrimony. The truth seems to be
that the Emperor wanted Vigilius, that Vigilius was not reluctant
to leave the besieged city, and that the scene in St. Cecilia was
concerted in order to protect him from the reproach that he was
voliuitarily abandoning Eome.^

In Sicily, the Pope was able to learn the opinion of western
ecclesiastics on the Three Chapters of Justinian. They were
unanimously opposed to the edict. Dacius, the archbishop of
Milan, arrived from Constantinople, where he had lived for some
years, and informed him that he had broken off communion with
Menas. Supported by western oj)inion the Pope resolved to
oppose the edict, and in autumn a.I). 546 ^ he set sail for Patrae,
accompanied by Dacius. He travelled slowly, and when he
reached Thessalonica he wrote a letter to Menas explaining his
views and threatening to break off communion with him if he
continued to support the Three Chapters.^ On January 25
(a.d. 547) he arrived at the capital, where he was honourably
and cordially received by the Emperor. He took up his quarters
in the palace of Placidia, the residence of the Eoman nuncios.

It was unfortunate for him that Pelagius was no longer at
Constantinople. He sorely needed the guidance of a man of
ability and tact. He had a learned adviser in Eacuiidiis, bishop
of Hermiane in Africa, who was well acquainted with Greek,
but the disposition and manners of Eacundus were far from

1 This is the view of Duchesae. John Mai. xviii. 483.

^ For the dates see Procopius, ® Facundus, Contra Mociamim, P,L.
B.Q. iii. 16. 1 ; Lib. Pont., Vita Vig. p. 862 ; Pro def. trium capit. iv. 3 ;
297 ; Cont, MaroelUni, $.a. 547 ; ib. p. 623.

386 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

conciliating.^ Vigiliiis himself was not mucli of a theologian, and
he seems never to have been quite sure as to the merits of the
controversy. He was pressed on one side by the Emperor and
the Patriarch, on the other by western opinion. His vacillations,
due both to intellectual and to moral weakness, presented a
pitiable spectacle. In view of his past record, he cannot excite
much compassion, but it is not uninteresting to read the
story of a Pope trailing in the dust the dignity of the Koman
see.

"When the Patriarch Menas, who, notwithstanding his first
hesitations, had become a warm supporter of the Imperial policy,
refused to withdraw his subscription to the Three Chapters,
Vigilius excommunicated him and his followers, but a reconcilia-
tion was soon effected by the intervention of Theodora,^ and
presently the Pope was assailed with doubts whether the Three
Chapters were not justifiable. He read extracts from the works
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which the Greeks translated for him,
and came to the conclusion that his doctrines were extremely
dangerous. He would not indeed sign the edict ; to do so,
would concede to the Emperor the right to dogmatise on matters
of faith. But he promised to declare an independent judgment,
and in the meantime gave the Emperor and Empress written
assurances that he intended to pronounce in the sense of the
edict.^ On Easter-eve, A.n. 548, he issued a ludioatum^ or
pronouncement, addressed to Menas, condemning Theodore and
the vuitings condemned in the edict, but carefully protecting
the authority of Chalcedon.

The Papal decision created consternation in western Christen-
dom. Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, published a learned treatise
against the Three Chapters, on which he had been engaged,^
The African Church dissolved communion with the Pope, and
even Zoilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had provisionally sub-
scribed to the edict, withdrew his signature and refused to accept

^ Duchesne, p. 402.

^ June 9, 547, Theoplianes, a.m.
6039 (source, John Mai. cp. xviii.
p. 483).

^ Acta y. Co7ic,, Mansi, ix. 350.

^ Only some fragments are pre-
served, Mansi, ix. 104405, 181.

^ Fro d&femione trium capiiulorum.
In its original form it consisted of
two books, which w^ere presented to

the Emperor, but was afterwards
expanded into twelve. Facundus
returned to Africa, took part in the
African Council of 550 which ex-
communicated Vigilius, and avoided
imprisonment by flight. In 571 he
wrote the treatise Contra 3Iocia7ium
on the same subject. These t\vo
works are important sources for the
story of the Three Chapters.

XXII CONTROVERSY OF THE THREE CHAPTERS 387

the ludicatum. The good opinion of the west was of more
importance to Vigilius than the Emperor’s favour, and, alarmed
by the general outcry which his decision had provoked, he sought
refuge in the expedient of a General Council. He told the
Emperor that this was the only way of averting a schism, and
persuaded him to consent to the withdrawal of the ludicatum.
But Justinian, before he agreed, made him swear on the Gospels
and the nails of the Cross that he would use‘all his influence to
procure the confirmation of the edict.^

Justinian, however, took further measures before the meeting
of the Council. He deposed from their sees the Patriarchs of
Alexandria and Jerusalem., who refused to approve the Three
Chapters, and he issued another edict (a.b. 551) to the same
purport as the former one. On the morning of its publication
Theodore Ascidas and other Greek clergy visited the Pope in the
Placidian palace. He urged them not to commit themselves to
any judgment on the Imperial decree, but to await the decision
of the Council. When they refused, he declined to receive them
or enter their churches, and he excommunicated Menas and
Ascidas. The rumour reached him that it was proposed to
remove him by force from his residence, and he took refuge,
along with the archbishop of Milan, in the sanctuary of SS. Peter
and Paul near the palace of Hormisdas. Soldiers were sent
to drag them away, and they clung to the altar. Vigilius was
seized by his feet and beard, but he was a man of powerful build
and in the struggle the altar gave way and fell to the ground
crushing him under its weight. There was a cry of horror from
the crowd which had gathered in the church, and the soldiers
and their commander ^ retreated, abandoning their j)iirpose
(August).

The Emperor comprehended that he had gone too far. He
sent assurances to the Pope and his clergy that they would be
safe if they returned to the Placidian palace. They went back,
and though no further violence was offered, the house was
guarded like a prison. This became so intolerable that, two days
before Christmas, Vigihus resolved to escape and fled under cover
of darkness to the church of St. Euphemia in Chalcedon, the
scene of the Council which had been the origin of so many

^ P,L. Ixis. 121-122. this is not a loose term, the Praetor

2 Vigihis calls him praetor, and if of the Denies must he meant.

388 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

troubles. Tlie Emperor then sent Belisariiis, chosen doubtless
on account of his old relations with the Pope, at the head of
a distinguished deputation, to , offer him sworn guarantees that
he would be honourably treated. The* Pope replied that the
time for oaths was past ; let the Emperor abstain from holding
relations with Menas and Ascidas. His tone enraged Justinian,
who wrote him a long unsigned letter full of menaces. Vigilius
employed the days of his soioiirn at St. Eupliemia in composing
an Encyclical Epistle, addressed to the whole people of God,’’
describing the violent treatment he had received, and declaring
a profession of faith in which no mention was made of the Three
Chapters. At length a new message arrived from the Emperor,
again offering guarantees (Feb, 4, a.d. 662), but nothing came
of itd Some time afterwards the Pope published his sentence of
excommunication against Menas and Ascidas and their followers.

This obstinate attitude wore out Justinian, and, not seeing
how he could find any one to put in the place of Vigilius, he agreed
with the Patriarch and his clergy that they should make sub-
mission to the Pope. They presented to him a declaration,
couched in sufficiently humble terms, of their reverence for the
Council of Chalcedon and the dogmatic Epistle of Leo, and he
then returned to the Placidian palace.

The Emperor had hoped to avoid the convocation of a Council,
but he resigned himself to the necessity before the end of the year.
Menas died in August (a.d. 562),^ and his successor Eiitychius
addressed a letter on the subject to the Pope, who replied
favourably.^ Then the Emperor proceeded to issue notes con-
voking the bishops. From Gaul and Spain, from Illyricum and
Dalmatia none came ; and from Africa only those were allowed
to attend on whom the Emperor thought he could count. It
was clear that the Council would consist almost entirely of bishops
of the Eastern Patriarchates. -

The bishops duly arrived, but they were kept waiting at
Constantinople for months before the Council met. The delay

^ Vigilius added an account of the , with the Lists of the Patriarchs which
interview to his Encyclical, which assign sixteen years six months to
he signed on the following day. The Menas. Eutycliius was consecrated
text of the Encyclical will be found immediately after his death. See
in P.L. Ixix. 53 sqq, i the condemna- Andreev, op, dt 175.
tion of Ascidas (dated in August 551),

ib. 59 sqq, s P.L, Ixix. 63 sq., and 65 sqq.

2 John Mai. xviii. 486. This agrees (January 6, 553).

XXII CONTROVERSY OF THE THREE CHAPTERS 389

was due to tlie Pope, who, though he had originated the proposal
of a Council, now declared that he would not take part in it.
Afraid, at the last moment, of injuring irrevocably his authority
in the eyes of the western churches, he had bethought himself
of a via media?- He would condemn certain doctrines of Theodore
of Mopsuestia without anathematising his person ; but he would
refuse to pass any judgment on the writings of Theodoret and.
Ibas, on the ground that their condemnation would bring dis-
credit on the Council of Chalcedon which had defended them.
But he did not imagine that he would be able to induce the
Council to adopt this compromise, and he therefore decided not
to attend it but to issue his own judgment independently.

The meeting of the Council could not be indefinitely post-
poned, and at last the first session was held in the Secretariat of
St. Sophia, on May 5, a.d. 553.^ The proceedings opened by
the reading of a letter of the Emperor reviewing the question
of the Three Chapters. The assembly sent many deputations to
the Pope requesting him to appear ; he replied that he would
send a written judgment on the question at issue.^ On May 14
it was ready, and Belisarius proceeded to the Placidian palace,
but only to dechne to transmit the document. A messenger of
Vigilius then carried it to the Great Palace, but the Emperor
refused to receive it, on the ground that if it confirmed the Three
Chapters, it merely repeated what Vigilius had already declared
and was therefore superfluous ; and if it was unfavourable, it
was inconsistent with his previous utterances and could carry no
weight.

At a subsequent session, Justinian presented to the Council
documents in which the Pope had approved of the Chapters of
his edict, and then laid before the assembly an Imperial decree
directing that the name of Vigilius should be struck out of the

^ Bucliosne tliinks that this com-
promise was probably suggested by
Pelagius.

2 The Acts are in Mansi, ix. 173
sqq. There were eight sessions, the
last on June 2. The Origenistic
heresy seems to have been discussed
at meetings of the bishops previous
to May 5, which did not form part
of the proceedings of the Council
proper, and at one of these conferences
a letter of the Emperor was read
which is preserved in the chronicle

of George Monachus (cd. de 35oor,
630 sqq.). This is the result of
Biekamp’s investigations (op. cit.).
Origen is mentioned in the eleventh
Anathema of the Council, but the
fifteen canons against Origenistic
doctrines (Mansi, ix. 395 sqq,) were
drawn up at the j>rcvious meetings,
and apparently w’ere not specially
confirmed by the Council.

® It is known as the Comtitutum
Vigiliif and will be found in P,E
Ixvii. aqq., and Coll. Avelt, Ep. S3.

390 HISrOEY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

diptychs on account of liis tergiversation and because be refused
to attend tlie CoiinciL This was done.

The decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which condemned
a Pope, as well as Theodore of Mopsuestia and works of Theodoret
and Ibas, were accepted without opposition. In the west they
led to the banishment of some bishops,^ and Pelagius, wlio had
signed the document of the Pope, was imprisoned,

Vigilius found himself alone, and once more he revoked his
latest decision. In yielding to the Emperor’s wishes, he may have
been moved by the fact that Narses had just completed the
subjugation of the Ostrogoths and that his own place V’as at
Eome. He chose among the difierent opinions which he had
successively defended that which appeared most favourable to
his personal interests and undoubtedly to those of his flock long
deprived of its shepherd.” ^ At the end of six months he ad-
dressed to the Patriarch Eutychius a letter signifying his accept-
ance of the decrees of the Council (December 8, a.d. 663),^ and
then prepared a formal judgment in which he refuted the argu-
ments alleged against the condemnations of the Three Chapters
(February 26, a.d. 554).^ The Emperor showed his satisfaction
by conferring benefits on the Koman see,^ and in the following
year the Pope set out for Italy, But he never saw Eome again.
He died at Syracuse (June 7, a.b. 655), and his body was conveyed
to Eome and buried in the Church of St. Silvester on the Via
Salaria.

Pelagius had refused to follow Vigilius in his last recantation,
and had written pamphlets against the Council. But he ■was
soon to do even as Vigilius, when the Emperor, who valued his
qualities, told him that he might succeed to the pontifical throne
if he would accept the Council. He revised his opinions with
little delay and was chosen and consecrated bishop of Eome.®
On this occasion, Justinian assumed the right, which had been

^ Like Victor Tonnennensis and ^ Mansi, ix. 457 sqq.

Liberatns. Tlie Breviarium of Libe- ® By a so-called Fragjnatica, dated
ratus, which has been often quoted in August 13, 554 ; Novellaef App. yii,
the foregoing pages, was written with {=YNov. 164, ed. Zacharia).
polemical intention against the Three ® Duchesne’s dates for the ponti-
Chapters. Primasius, who had sue- fieate of Pelagius are April 16, 550
ceeded the exiled Ileparatus in the, (not 555), to March 4, 501 (not 560).
see of Carthage, yielded, Cp. op, cit 428. At his consecration

2 Duchesne, ib, 422. Pelagius declared a profession of faith

® Mansi, ix. 413 sqq.; P.E Ixix. in which he entirely ignored the
121 sqq. Fifth Council.

XXII CONTROVERSY OF THE THREE CHAPTERS 391

exercised by the OstrogotMc kings, of confirming elections to tbe
Roman see.^

The Fifth Ecmnenical Council failed utterly in its main object
of bringing about unity in the east, and it caused a schism in
the west. Milan and Aquileia would know nothing of its decrees,
and though political events, when the Lombards invaded Italy,
forced Milan to resume communion with Rome, the see of Aquileia
maintained its secession for more than a hundred and forty years.

It is possible that under the stress of persecution the Mono-
physitic faith might have expired, had it not been for the in-
defatigable labours of one devoted zealot, who not only kept the
heresy alive, but founded a permanent Monophysitic Church.
This was Jacob Baradaeus, who was ordained bishop of Edessa
(about 641) by the Monophysitic bishops who were hiding at
Constantinople under the protection of Theodora. Endowed with
an exceptionally strong physical constitution, he spent the rest
of his life in wandering through the provinces of the East, Syria,
Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor, disguised as a beggar, and he
derived the name Baradaeus ^ from his dress, which was made
of the saddle-cloths of asses stitched together. His disguise
was so effective, and his fellow-heretics were so faithful, that all
the efforts of the Imperial authorities to arrest him were vain,
and he lived till a.d. 578. His work was not only to confirm
the Monophysites in their faith and maintain their drooping spirit,
but also to ordain bishops and clergy and provide them with a
secret organisation. His name has been perpetuated in that of
the Jacobite Church which he founded.

§ 8. General Significance of Justinian^ s Policy

The Fifth Ecumenical Council differed from the four which
preceded it in that, while they pronounced on issues which
divided Christendom and which called for an authoritative
decision of the Church, the Fifth dealt with a question which
had been artificially created. Constantine, Theodosius the Great,
his grandson, and Marcian had convoked ecclesiastical assemblies

^ Cp. Lib&r Diurnus Rom, Pont., Jacobaretlieij^yebyJoIin of Ephesus,
ed. Kozicre (1869), Iviii. p. 103 sqq. Comm, c. 49 ; another Life wrongly
2 From the Arabic form al-Bara- ascribed to the same writer,^ ib, p.
di'a, which corresj^onds to the Syriac 203 sqq. ; and John Eph. Hist. ecc.
]Burde‘aya. The chief sources for Part III. B. iv. 13 sqq.

392 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap,

to settle successive controversies wMcli liad arisen in tlie natural
course of tlieological speculation and wMch tlireatened to break
up tke Ckurcli into sects; tke piirpose of tlie Council -wMcli
Justinian summoned was to confirm a tkeological decision of Ms
own wliicli was incidental indeed to a vital controversy, but only
incidental. His object was to repair the failure of Clialcedon
and to smooth the way to reunion with the Monophysites ; and
it may be said that the Three Chapters were entirely in the spirit
of the orthodox theological school of his time.^ But the question
was provoked by himself ; it was not one on which the decree
of a General Council was imperatively required.

The importance of this episode of ecclesiastical history lies in
the claim which Justinian successfully made to the theological
guidance of the Church, a claim which went far beyond the rights
of control exercised by previous emperors. Zeno had indeed
taken a step in this direction by his Henotikon, but the purpose
of the Henotikon was to suppress controversy, not to dictate
doctrine. Justinian asserted the principle that doctrinal decisions
could be made by Imperial edicts. An edict imposed upon the
Church the orthodoxy of the Theopaschite formula ; an edict
condemned opinions of Origen; and, though the behaviour of
Pope Vigilius forced the Emperor to summon a Council, the
Council did no more than confirm the two edicts wMch he had
issued on the Three Chapters. Justinian seems to have regarded
it as merely a matter of policy and expediency whether theological
questions should be settled by ecclesiastical synods or by Imperial
legislation. Eastern ecclesiastics acquiesced in the claims of the
Emperor when they adhered to the first edict on the Three
Chapters, even though they made their adhesion conditional on
the attitude of Eome ; and at the synod of a.d. 536, while the
assembled bishops said We both follow and obey the apostolic
throne,” it was also laid down by the Patriarch that nothing
should be done in the Church contrary to the will of the Emperor.^

^ Cp. Loofs, op. cit. 316. In one andria, c. 542-543 ; and an open letter
of Ms laws {Nov. 132, A.i). 544) against the defenders of Theodore
Justinian appeals to Ms books and of Mopsuestia. See Loofs, op. cit.
edicts to prove his zeal for oiihodox 310 sqq . ; W. H. Hutton, The OJmrch
doctrine. His extant works (see P.G. of the Sixth Century, 189 sqq.

86) include, besides the edicts against

Origen and on the Three Chapters ^ Mansi, ix. 970 itpou'^Ket find^v rC^v
and some minor writings, a dogmatic $v t§ ayioordry iKK\'t)crlg, Kivovjjlvwif
refutation of the Monopliysite doe- irapk ‘ airov teal K^Xeveny

trine, addi’essed to monks of Alex- yepMai.

XXII

393

JUSTINIAN^S HERESY

This Caesaro-papism, as it has been called, or Erastianism, to
use the word by which the same principle has been known in
modern history, was the logical result of the position of the
Church as a State institution.

The Three Chapters was not the last theological enterprise of
Justinian. In the last years of his life he adopted the dogma
of aphthartodocetism, which had been propagated, as we have
seen, ^ by Julian of Halicarnassus, and had sown strife among
the Monophy sites of Egypt. This change of opinion is generally
considered an aberration due to senility ; but when we find a
learned modern theologian asserting that the aphthartodocetic
dogma is a logical development of the Greek doctrine of salva-
tion,^ we may hesitate to take Justinian’s conversion to it as a
sign that his intellectual power had been enfeebled by old age.
The Imperial edict in which he dictated the dogma has not been
preserved. The Patriarch Eutychius firmly refused to accept it,
and the Emperor, not forgetting his success in breaking the will
of Vigilius, caused him to be arrested (January 22, a.d. 665).
He was first sent to the Island of the Prince and then banished
to a monastery at Amasea.^ The other Patriarchs were unani-
mous in rejecting the Imperial dogma. Anastasius of Antioch
and his bishops addressed to the Emperor a reasoned protest
against the edict. Their bold remonstrances enraged Justinian,
and he was preparing to deal with them, as he had dealt with
Eutychius, when his death relieved the Church from the prospect
of a new persecution.^

See above, p. 375.

2 Harnack, History of Dogmas iv.
238, where it is suggested that
Justinian was inclined to this heresy
in the early years of his reign.

® Eustratius, Vita Entyohiit c. 5.
Eutj^chius was succeeded in the
Patriarchate by John of Sirmium,
who held the see for twelve and a
half years, and then Eutyclxius was
restored (a.i>. 577).

^ The sources for Justinian’s heresy
are : Evagrius, E,E. iv. 39. 40 ;
Eustratius, ih. cc. 4, 5 ; Theophanes,
A.M. 0057 ( — Cramer, Anecd. ii. Ill),
whose notice is probably derived
from John Malalas ; Michael Mel.
Chron. ix. 34, who gives the text of
the Antiochene document (his ulti-
mate source was probably John of
Ephesus, H.E. Part IL) ; John of

i^ikiu, Chron. c. 94, p. 399 ; Nice-
phorus Patriarcha, Ghronogr. p. 117,
ed. de Boor. Victor Tonn., s.a.
566, notices the deposition of Euty-
chius, but does not assign the reason.
There is also a letter of Mcetius,
bishop of Trier, to Justinian, re-
proaching him with his lapse into
heresy in his old age {m ultima
smectute, tua), though the bishop
appears to have had no clear idea as to
the nature of the heresy {P.L. Ixviii.
378). An attempt to rescue the
reputation of Justinian for un-
blemished orthodoxy was made by
Richard Crakanthorp, who in 1616
published a pamphlet, Justinian the
Emperor defended against Cardinal
Baronius, m which he sought to
invalidate the evidence (which at
that time mainly consisted of Eva-

394 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE cu. xxii

grins and Enstratius). In 1693 Hum-
phrey Hody refuted his arguments
in a treatise entitled The Case of Sees
Vacant by an Unjust or Uncanonical
Deprivation Stated, The thesis of
Crakanthorp has been revived in
modern times, with much greater
ingenuity and learning, by W. H.
Hutton {op. cit. 205 sqq., and articles
in The Guardian, ilugust 12, 1891,

April 22, 1897 ; cp. my articles, ib,,
March 4, 1896, jamiary 13, 1897).
But the testimonies are too strong
and circumstantial to be set aside
or evaded. It may be noted that,
according to Michael Mel. {loc. cit),
Justinian was perverted by a monk
of Joppa ; and accorcling to some ho
returned to the path of orthodoxy
just before he died.

CHAPTEE XXIII

THE LEGISLATIVE WOBK OE JUSTINIAN

%l, Godification of the Law

Justinian is the only Emperor after Constantine, or at least
after Julian tlie apostate, wEose name is familiar to many wlio
have never read a line about the history of the later Empire.
He owes this fame to the great legal works which are associated
with his name ; and it may be suspected that some of those who
have heard of the Digest and Institutions of Justinian thinlc of
him as a jurist and are hardly aware that he was an Emperor.

Justinian’s legal achievements were twofold. By new legisla-
tion he brought to completion, in several important domains of
civil law, the tendencies towards simplicity and equity which
had been steadily developing for many centuries. This alone
would have made his name remembered in the history of European
law. But his chief work did not consist in legislative improve-
ments. It consisted in reducing to order and arranging in
manageable form the enormous and unwieldy body of Eoman
law as it existed.^

Eoman law, at this time, was of two kinds, which we may
distinguish as statute law and jurisprudence ; the statute law
consisting of the Imperial constitution, and the jurisprudence of
the works of the authoritative jurists who had written in the
second and third centuries. Codification of the statute law was
not a novelty. There had already been three Codes, the last of
which, as we saw, was issued under the auspices of Theodosius II.

^ Good general accounts oi thjQ Digeat, and in Bryce’s article on
legal works of Justinian will be Justinian in the Diet of Christian
found in Roby’s Introduction to the Biograj^hy^

396 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

and Ms western colleague in a.d. 438. But a new collection,
more compendious and up-to-date, was a pressing need. Tlie
book of Theodosius was bulky, and was not always at hand to
consult in the courts. Many of the enactments contained in it
were wholly obsolete or had suffered modification, and in the
seventy years which had elapsed since its appearance, a large
number of new laws had been made.

It seems almost certain that Justinian had conceived the idea
of compiling a new Code before he ascended the throne, for not
many months after his accession to power he issued a constitu-
tion addressed to the Senate, in wMch he announced the plan
of a new collection of laws, edited up to date, with contradictions
carefully eliminated, obsolete constitutions expunged, superfluous
preambles or explanations omitted, words altered, eliminated, or
added for the sake of clearness ; and appointed a commission of
ten expert jurists to execute the work.^ Of these ten, the pagan
Tribonian, afterwards Quaestor, the Emperor’s right hand in his
great legal enterprise, and perhaps partly their inspirer, and
Theophilus, professor of law at Constantinople, were the most
distinguished.

The commission must have worked hard, for the Code was
completed and pubhshed in little more than a year. The Imperial
constitution which introduced it to the world and made it ‘
authoritative was dated on April 7, a.d. 529.^ But the Code
which then appeared, and was arranged in ten Books, has not
come down to us. Five and a half years later, an amended
edition was issued,^ arranged in tw^elve Books and including the
new constitutions of the intervening period. It is this edition
which we possess, and it contains 4652 laws.

In the meantime a more original and far more difficult work
had been plamied and completed. This was to reduce to order
and consistency, and to present in a convenient form, the admirable
body of jurisprudence wMch had been built up in the second and
third centuries, the classical period of Eoman law. The great

^ February 13, A, B. 528. This con- PajoyH, xv. p. 217 sqq.). It

stitution {Eaec quae — ) is preiixed to eontaius the ladex to Bk, i, titles li-
the Code. 18, but 12 and 13 are omitted. Among

^ Prefixed to Code {Summa — ) ; other interesting points it supplies the
addressed to the Prefect of the City, name of the Emperor who enacted i,
[A fragment of the hidex titulorum of 11. 9 : it was Anastasius.]
the 1st ed., found in Egypt, has been ® Prefixed to Code (Cordi nobis — ) ;
published this year by A. S. Hunt, addressed to the Senate.

XXIII

CODIFICATION OF THE LAW

397

lawyers of that age, who were licensed to give opinions and
whose answ^ers carried the weight of Imperial authority,
explained and developed the rules of law which had been finally
embodied in the Perpetual Edict of Hadrian. Their opinions
{res'ponsa pmdentium) were scattered in many treatises, and they
often differed. On many points antagonists might produce twm
opposite opinions, and on almost any the judge might be per-
plexed by inconsistent citations. The writings of five jurists
soon came to obtain a predominant influence. These were Gains,
Papinian, Ulpian, Paulus, and Modestinus. The Emperor Con-
stantine sought to diminish the practical inconvenience caused
through the disagreements of these lawyers by exalting the
authority of Papinian above Paulus and Ulpian. Yalentiniaii III.
and Theodosius II. passed an important measure, knowm as tlie
Law of Citations, ordaining that the majority of opinions should
determine the decision of the judge, and that, if they were equally
divided, the ruling of Papinian should prevail.^

But the treatises of the recognised experts w-ere so voluminous
that in practice it was very difficult to administer good law. At
most courts there was probably neither the necessary library nor
the necessary learning available. It was a crying need, in the
interests of justice, to make the opinions of the jurists easily
accessible, and the idea was conceived and carried out by
Justinian of meeting this want by ‘^ enucleating the old juris-
prudence.’’

But one thing had to be done first. The Law of Citations
imposed upon each judge the task of examining and correcting
the opinions of the authorities when they disagreed. Plainly it
would be much more convenient and satisfactory to have all
important cases of disagreement settled once for all, so tliat the
judge should have one clear ruling to guide him. Accordingly
Justinian’s lawyers drew up Eifty Decisions, which settled prin-
cipal points of dispute.

This cleared the way for compiling an authoritative and con-
sistent body of Jurisprudence. In the last month of a.d. 530,
Justinian authorised a commission of sixteen lawyers, under the
presidency of Tribonian, to set about the work.^ They were to
eliminate all contradictions and omit all repetitions, and when
they had thus prepared the vast material they were to arrange
^ A-D. 426, a Th, i. 4. 3. - CJ. i. 17. 1.

398 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

it in one fair work, as it were a koly temple of Justice, containing
in fifty Books the law of 1300 years. Tribonian seems to have
adopted the practical expedient of dividing the commission into
three committees, each of which digested and prepared a portion
of the material.^ Immense as the task was, it was completed
in less than three years, and was published in December, a.d. 533.^
The work was known as the Digest or the Pandects.^

The Code and the Digest were each promulgated as an
Imperial statute. They were to comprehend the whole body
of valid law, except such Imperial constitutions as might
subsequently be issued. All the books of the jurists were
herewith rendered obsolete, as well as the Twelve Tables and the
older Codes.

During the compilation of the Digest, Tribonian and his two
most learned coadjutors, Theophilus, professor at Constantinople,
and Dorotheus, professor at Berytus, prepared and published an
official handbook of civil law for the use of students, the famous
Institutions, This manual reproduces the Commentaries of Gains,
the great jurist of the second century, but brings that work up
to date by numerous changes, omissions, and additions. Like
the Code and Digest, it is published with all the authority of a
statute.^

With the publication of the Institutions and the Digest, the
Emperor announced a reform of legal studies. The education
of a student in the legal schools extended over five years.
Justinian prescribed a rearrangement of the course,^ which was
now to be confined to his own law books, and he abolished all

^ Tile composition of the Digest
was elucidated by D. Bluhme, Die
Ordmmg der Fragnmite in den Pan-
decten-titeln. Bluhme showed that
the arrangement of the Books was
determined by Pythagorean theories
of numbers. This was quite in the
spirit of the time. Cp. Roby, preface
to Introduction to the Digest.

^ See the constitutions prefixed
to the work {Omnem reipublicue — ,
and Dedit nobis — ) ; and G.J. i, 17. 2.

® Digesta ; TravdcKrai. G.J. i, 17.
1 § 12 .

^ See the prefixed constitution
(dated A.n. 533, November 21)
addressed cu^ndae legmn iuventuti.
Gains and the Institutions can be
conveniently compared in Gneist’s

ed., in parallel columns (2nd ed.,
1880).

^ See the constitution Omnem
(addressed to the professors of law,
antecessoribus). The students of each
year were distinguished by special
names : 1st year, Dupondii ; 2nd,
Edictales ; 3rd, Papinianistae ; 4th,
XiJrai ; 5th, TpohuraL. Justinian
stigmatises dupondii as a frivolous
and ridiculous name, and orders
that the freshmen shall henceforth
be designated lustiniani novi. In
Zacharias, Life of Severus (ed. Ku-
gener), there is some interesting
information about the life of law
students at Berytus. It was a
regular practice for the Edictales to
“ rag the Dupondii.

XXIII

CODIFICATION OF THE LAW 399

the law schools of the Empire except those of Constantinople
and Berytns. This was intended to secure that the teaching
should be in the hands of entirely competent persons.^

The Code, Digest, and Institutions form the principal parts
of the Corpus Juris Civilis, on which the law of most European
countries is based, and which has influenced English law, although
it was never accepted in England. The fourth part of the Corpus
consists of the later laws of Justinian, published after the second
edition of the Code, and known as the Novels. It is perhaps
surprising that the Emperor did not, in the course of the last
thirty years of his reign, issue another edition of the Code, in-
cluding the new constitutions. He promised to publish a collec-
tion of his Novels, but he never did so ; ^ and it was left to private
jurists to collect them after his death.^ Thus the fourth part of'
the Corpus has not the same ofS.cial character as the other three.
The Novels testify to the growing disuse of Latin as the official
language. Previous Emperors, even Theodosius II., had occasion-
ally issued constitutions in Greek ; but in the reign of Justinian,
Greek became the rule and Latin the exception. Nearly all the
Novels (except those intended for publication in Africa and Italy)
were drawn up in Greek.^

Many of the laws of Justinian are concerned with administra-
tive reforms, which have claimed our attention in other places.
Here we may consider how civil jurisprudence and criminal law
developed under his predecessors and were completed or modified
by him.

^ Const. Ommm, § 7 mdivimus -we possess (125 Noyels). "We have
etiam in Alexandrina splendidissima also the Authentioiim, a Latin version
civitate et in Caesarienmum et in aliia used in the Middle Ages (134 Novels).
quosdain imperitos homines devagare But we loiow of other collections too
et doctrinmn disdpuUs aduUerinam (cp. Heimbach, Reclit, p.

tradere, 199). At the end of the first text

- See Const. Oordi nobis (prefixed are eleven edicts (not counted as
to Code); aliam congregationem — Novels); and we have also some
quae novellarmn nomine constitutionum other constitutions of Justinian,
significetur. It has been conjectured derived from various sources. These
that the death of Tribonian may have additional texts mil be found as
had something to do with the non- Appendices I. and 11. to the edition
fulfilment of this purpose. of Sehoeil and Eroll.

® The basis of our text is a collec-
tion of 168 Novels, of which four are ^ Zacharia von Lingenthal attri-
diipllcates, seven belong to Justin 11. butes this change to the influence of
and Tiberius IL, and four are edicts Jolxn the Capjmdocian (jlppendix to
of Praetorian Prefects ; so tha-t it his ed. of Novellae, pp. 6, 8). John Avas
contains 153 laws of Justinian, ignorant of Latin, and most of the
Another collection formed the basis laws were addressed to the Praet.
of the Latin epitome of Julian, which Pref. of the East.

400 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

§ 2. Civil Law

The civil legislation of Justinian forms in many respects the
logical term of the development of Koman law. The old law of
the Twelve Tables had undergone profound modifications, first
by the iudgments of the Praetors under the influence of the I us
gentium, md then by Imperial statutes. We may say that this
development was marked by two general features. The law was
simplified on form, and it was humanised in substance. Both
these processes were mainly a consequence of the Imperial ex-
pansion of Eome. The acquisition of strange territories, the
subjection of foreign peoples, had led to the formation of a
second system of jurisprudence, the praetorian law; and this,
which had the merit of greater elasticity, reacted upon the native
civil law of Eome and eventually wrought considerable changes
in it, both by mitigating some of its harsher features and by
superseding some of its cumbrous forms. At later stages the
process of simplification progressed, first by Caracalla’s grant of
Eoman citizenship to all the free subjects of the Empire (in
A.D. 212), and secondly, at a later time, by the disappearance
of the distinction between Eoman and provincial soil, whereby
it became possible to simplify the law of real property. The
gradual changes in the spirit of Eoman law responded generally
to changes in public opinion, and the chief agency in educating
Eoman opinion and humanising the Eoman attitude to life was
undoubtedly Greek thought. The spirit of the De officiis of
Cicero illustrates how far Eoman educated opinion had travelled
during the last two centuries of the Eepublic.

The extension of Eoman citizenship to all freemen in the
Empire did away with the ius Latii md the legal distinctions
appertaining to it. But between the slaves and the citizens
there still remained some intermediate classes, who were less
than citizens and more than slaves. There’ were the Latini
luniani, slaves who had been manumitted, but through some
flaw in the process had not become citizens in the full sense,
having neither the right to hold public office nor to marry a
free person, and being unable to make a will or to inherit under
a will. There were the dediticii, slaves who had undergone
punishment for crime and were afterwards manumitted, but

XXIII

CIVIL LAW

401

wlio, in consequence of their old offences, did not enjoy the full
rights of a citizen and could not live within a hundred miles of
Eome. And there were persons, in mancipii causa ; children
whom their fathers had surrendered into slavery, in consequence
of some misdemeanour which they had committed, and whose
status differed from that of true slaves in that, if they w^ere
manumitted, they became not freedmen but freemen
These three classes had little importance in the time of Justinian,
but he finally did away with them, and thus consummated the
simj)lification of personal status. There were now, in the eyes
of the law, only two classes, citizens and slaves. Among citizens
indeed the class of freedmen was still distinguished, but only by the
obligations which a freedman owed to his patron, not by any civil
disabilities. Formerly he could not be a senator or a magistrate,
unless the restrictions were removed by Imperial favour,^ nor
could he marry a lady of senatorial family. Justinian abolished
these disabilities.

In regard to slavery itself, the legislation of Justinian was
also progressive. He repealed the Lex Fiifia Caninia (a.d, 8),
which limited the number of slaves a master might manumit,
and he abolished the restrictions which the Lex Aelia Sentia had
imposed on the liberation of slaves under thirty years of age.
The solemn forms of manumission ^ ceased to be necessary ; any
signification of the intention to manumit was legally valid.

The patria potestas^Ys^s one of the fundamental principles which
underlay the fabric of Roman law, and nothing better illustrates
the influence which the gradual humanising of public opinion
exercised on legislation than the limitations which were success-
ively placed upon the authority of the paterfamilias over the
persons and proj)erty of those who were under his poteslas. One
of the last severities to disappear was the right of a father to
surrender his children as slaves to any one whom they had
wronged, a right of which he might be tempted to avail him-
self if he were unable or unwilling to pay compensation.
This practice {noxae deditio) had practically disappeared before

^ Namely, by a decree granting ^ Under the Empire, till the fourth
resiitvtio nataliwni (which cancelled century manmnissiori could in general
the rights of the patron), or im only be edected by vindicta fjr
mmlorum aureorum. Justinian granted testament. Tlie recognition of Chris-
these to all freedmen, but reserved the tianity introduced ”a new form,
patron’s rights, Nov, 78. declaration in ecclesiis.

402

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

the sixth century, but was still legally recognised. Justinian
abolished it formally, and his observations on the subject illus-
trate the tendency of Koman legislation.^ According to the
just opinion of modern society, harshness {aspefitas) ol this kind
must be rejected, and this practice has fallen utterly into disuse.
Who will consent to give his son, far less his daughter, into noxal
servitude 1 For a father will suffer, through his son, far more
than the son himself, and in the case of a daughter such a thing
is barred still more by consideration for her chastity.’’

By the harshness of early law, all property acquired by persons
in potestas belonged to the father. This was modified by suc-
cessive provisions under the Empire, and, before Justinian, the
father was entitled to the usufruct of the property which his son
had independently acquired. If he emancipated his son, he
retained one third as absolute owner. Justinian changed this
law to the advantage of the children. He gave the father a life
interest in half the son’s property ; but when the father died,
it reverted to the son.^

Justinian also simplified the process of emancipation. The
ancient elaborate method of emancipating persons in potestas 'bj
fictitious sales was still in use. The Emperor Anastasius intro-
duced, as an alternative method, emancipation by Imperial re-
script, but this did not make the process easier, though it was
highly convenient when the person to be emancipated was not
residing in the same place as the paterfamilias. Justinian
‘^exploded” the old fictitious process ® and enacted that a
simple declaration of both parties in the presence of a magistrate
or judge should be legally valid.

The history of marriage shows the same tendency to simplifica-
tion. In early times a legal marriage between Eoman citizens
could be contracted in one of three ways : by a religious ceremony,
which was confined to patricians (con/a?Tcai5io) ; by a process of
fictitious sale (coemptio ) ; and by cohabitation for a year (tmis).
In each of these ways, the wife came under the power

^ Inst. iv. 8 § 7. The influence of elucidating this subject.

‘‘oriental” (Greek) law on many of g n r ' ci C

Justinian’s reforms is traced and O.'/. vi. oi, o.

emphasised in P. CoIIinet’s valuable ® Fictione pristina explosa, Inst. i.

Mudes historiques siir le de 12 § 6. Por the influence of Greek

Justinian, voL i, 1912. The Syro- law on the simplification of form in

Roman lawbook, edited by Bruns and this case and in that of adoi)tion see

Sachau (1880), is of much service in Colliuet, op. cii. 52 sqq.

XXIII

403

CIVIL LAW

of lier husband ; this power, in fact, was the fundamental
feature in the legal conception of marriage. Towards the end
of the second century A.D., these old forms of contracting civil
marriage had fallen into disuse.^ In other words, was

obsolete. The Romans had adopted the matfimonimn iure
gentium, which had formerly been used by those who did not
possess the right of marriage with Roman citizens (ius connubii),^
This union did not produce mams, nor did it originally give the
father j^otestas over his children. It was quite informal ; consent
only was required. But as it came into use among Roman
citizens, it was allowed to carry with it the f atria potestas.
Divorce by consent was the logical result of marriage by consent
and the disuse of mwnus. So long as manm had constituted the
legal relation, the husband had to emancipate his wife in order
to effect a divorce.

But the disuse of mamis, which had placed the wife in the
position of a daughter, did not make her legally independent
{sui iuris). She remained either under -jjatria potestas or under
guardianship {tutela). The old theory was that a woman was
not a person capable of legal action, and that if she were under
neither potestas nor manus she must be legally represented by a
guardian. Exceptions were made to this rule even in the time
of Augustus ; 2 and the result of the growing belief that -women
were capable of acting for themselves w^as that by the fourth
century perpetual guardianship of females had disappeared.

If we turn from the law^ of persons to the law of p)roperty, we
notice similar tendencies. When the distinction between Italian
and provincial soil disappeared, the distinction also fell away
between the full quiritary ownership, which applied only to Italian
land, and the honitary ownership granted to the actual pro-
prietors of provincial land, of which the supreme owner was the
Roman people. The curious classification of property, wliich
had played a great part in the old law, as res mancipi (real
property in Italy, slaves, the chief domestic animals) ^ and res
nee mancipi, was abandoned and abolished ; and the conveyance

' ' V ■ ■ ■

^ Gonjarreatio survived, but was ^ Lex lulia et Papia Poppaca,
only used by families who held certain a,d. 9.

religious offices. ^ Imt. ii. 8. 40 ; C.J. vii. 25 ; vii. 31-

- Caracalla’s law abolished, ipso ® Also rural servitudes. The word
facto, all restrictions on the ius m has of cciurse a mucli wider eoii-
comiubii, notation than property.

404 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

of property was simplified by the disappearance of the ancient
and cumbrous civil methods {mamipatio and in iwe cessio) which
were superseded by the natural process of simple delivery (traditio).
Full ownership (domimwO could now be acquired by delivery.
It could also ]3e acquired by long possession m mmwpio. This
method of acquisition had formerly been inapplicable to provincial
land (because the dominium belonged to the Eoman people),
and the praetors had introduced an equivalent institution
tenqwds pmescriptio), which was extended to all kinds of pro-
perty. Justinian simphfied the law by applying the second
method to land which could be acquired by prescription after
ten or (in some cases) twenty years, and the first method to
moveables, possession of which for three years produced full
ownership.^

The governing conception in the Eoman jurisprudence which
concerned the family was the relationship knowm as agnatio.
This untranslatable term is defined by Eoman lawyers as kinship
{cognatio) through males, but perhaps its scope is more clearly
explained by saying that agnates were those who were under the
patria polesias of the same person, or would have been so, if
he were alive.^

The most important sphere in which agnation operated was
the law of inheritance. When a man died without making a
will, his heirs at law were in the first instance those persons
(children, grandchildren, etc.) who -were in his potestas and
whom his death automatically rendered independent {sni iiiris).
These were called sui heredes and did not include sons -whom he
had emancipated before his death or married daughters. If there
were no sui heredes the inheritance passed to the nearest agnates ;
and if these failed to the gens. The two most serious defects in
this system w^ere the exclusion of sons and daughters who had
passed out of the potestas of the deceased before his death, and
the disqualification of cognates w-ho were not also agnates. The

^ Inst. ii. G; G.J. viL 31.1; vii. 33. 12. group of agnati proximi i^ constituted

2 For the benefit of readers who by those who were izi the
are not familiar with the conception, of A’s father ; namely, A’s brothers
it may be explained that if we start and sisters, the sons ' and daughters
with a paterfamilias (A), a first group of the brothers, and so on. A third
of agnates is formed by bis sons and and more remote group is formed by
daughters, the children of his sons, those who were m the potestas of
the children of the sons of his sons, A’s grandfather. And so on in
etc. This group is determined by a ascending scale. Adoption carried
common relation to A. A second with it inciusion among the agnates.

xxni

CIVIL 'LAW

405

Praetors devised expedients to remedy these hardships and to
introduce new rules of succession w^hich favoured cognation at
the expense of agnation ; but it was reserved for Justinian
finally to lay down a scheme of intestate succession, which pre-
vails in most European countries to-day J

By this reform the first heirs to an estate are the cognate
descendants of the deceased, that is, his sons and daughters,
their children, grandchildren, etc. The children inherit in equal
shares ; grandchildren only come in if their parent is dead, and
divide his or her share. One trace, indeed, of the agnate system
remains ; adopted children count as natural.

If there are no descendants, the full brothers and sisters of
the deceased, or the next nearest cognates, inherit, and dead
brothers and sisters are represented by their issue, in the same
way as in the former case. Failing heirs of this group, half-
brothers and half-sisters have the next claim ; after this, other
collaterals.*^

In this legislation, there is no recognition of the claim of a wife
or of a husband. The theory was that the wife was adequately
provided for by her dowry ; but Justinian enacted that a poor
widow should inherit a quarter of her husband\s estate.

Nor was the law of inheritance under wdlls left unaltered.
Hitherto if a testator failed to make any provision for his near
kin, the aggrieved relatives had to seek a remedy by a process
known as “complaint against an undutiful will.’’ ^ Justinian
obliged a testator to leave his children, if they were four or fewer,
at least one third ; if they were more than four, at least one half
of his estate ; ^ and bound him further to institute as his heirs
those descendants who would be his heirs in case of an intestacy,
unless he could specify some cause for disinheriting them which
would appear reasonable in the eyes of the law.^

The jurists of Justinian also introduced a simple and final
remedy for the hardship of the ancient law, by which the heir

: ; 118; Nov. 127. ,

2 In the case of an intestate freed-
man, the patron’s rights had to he
considered and the law was different.
His heirs were (1) natural descendants ;
(2) his .patron; (3) the patron’s
children ; (4) the i:)atron’s collaterals,

® Querela inodlciosi testaments

^ Nov, 18.

■ ^ Nov. llo. It may be added tliat
Justinian also simplitied the law of
Legacies, and the law of Trusts, ]>y
assimilating all legacies to one another
(there used to be four dillVrent kinds),
and by placing legacies and trusts on
much the same for) ting. Cp. hist.
ii. 20 § 2, and 23 § 12.

400

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

was made responsible for tbe liabilities of tbe deceased even if they
exceeded the value of the estate which he inherited. He might
of course refuse to accept the inheritance, but if he accepted it he
assumed, as it were, the person of the deceased, and any property
he otherwise possessed was liable for debts which the estate
could not meet. Of this law, which may well be considered one
of the asperities of Koman antiquity, various modifications had
been devised to meet particular cases, but they were inadequate.
Justinian’s benefice of inventory ” solved the difficulties. The
heir was required to make an inventory of the estate and com-
plete it within two months of the decease ; if he did this, the
estate alone was liable.^

The history of the law of divorce may be considered separately,
for the legislation on this subject under the autocracy forms a
remarkable and unpleasing exception to the general course of the
logical and reasonable development of Roman jurisprudence.
Here ecclesiastical influence was active, and the Emperors from
Constantine to Justinian fluctuated between the wishes of the
Church on one side, and on the other common sense and Roman
tradition. The result was a confusion, no less absurd to a
lawyer’s sense of fitness than offensive to the reason of ordinary
men. The uncertainty and vacillation which marked the
Imperial attempts at compromise was aggravated by the fact
that the ecclesiastics themselves had not yet arrived at a clear
and definite doctrine, and were guided now, as later, not by any
considerations of the earthly welfare of mankind, but by incon-
sistent texts in the New Testament ^ which they were at some
loss to reconcile.

Roman law recognised two -ways in which a marriage could be
dissolved — divorce by mutual consent, and the repudiation of one
spouse by the other.^ Divorce by mutual consent was always
regarded as a purely private matter and was never submitted
to a legal form, and even the Christian Emperors before Justinian
did not attempt to violate the si3irit of the Roman law of contract
by imposing any limitations. It was reserved for Justinian to
prohibit it, unless the motive was to allow' one of the spouses

lb. 19. 6. ^ when he wrote {Ep. 176), “Divorce

^ Matthe\y v. 32, against Mark x, is altogether displeasing to our laws,
2-12, Luke xvi. 18. Gregory of though the laws of the Romans
Nazianzus expressed the general ordain otherwise.”
ecclesiastical disapprobation of divorce ® Divorce hona aratia and remtdium.

XXIII CIVIL LAW 407

to embrace a life of asceticism.^ This arbitrary and rigorous
innovation was intolerable to bis subjects, and after bis death
bis successor was assailed by numerous petitions for its repeal.
Tbe domestic misery resulting from incompatibility of temper
was forcibly represented to bim, and be restored tbe ancient
freedom as a concession to tbe frailty of human nature.^

One'-sided divorce bad been equally unfettered ; Augustus
only required that tbe partner who decided to dissolve the
marriage should make a formal declaration to this effect in the
presence of seven citizens. Constantine introduced a new and
despotic pobcy. He forbade one-sided divorce entirely except
for a very few specified reasons. A woman was only permitted
to divorce her husband, if be was found guilty of murder, poison-
ing, or the violation of tombs. If she separated herself from bim
for any other reason, she forfeited her dowry and all her property
to the very bodkin of her hair, and was condemned to be deported
to an island. A man might divorce bis wife for adultery, or if
she were guilty of preparing poisons, or of acting as a procuress.
If be repudiated her for any other reason be was declared incap-
able of contracting a second marriage.^ This cruel law was but
slightly softened by Honorius,^ but in tbe reign of Theodosius II.
reason and Eonian legality prevailed for a moment. The legal
advisers of that Emperor persuaded bim that in the matter of
divorce it is harsh to dei)art from tbe governing principle of
the ancient laws,’’ and be abobsbed all tbe restrictions and
penalties which bis Christian predecessors bad imposed,^ But

^ Nov. 117, § 10, A.D. 542. Six mtnesses. It belongs to the reign of
years before be bad confirmed tbe Justinian, evidently before tbe law of
old practice on tbe ground that ail a.d. 542. — ^Ho. 67153 and ISTo. 67155
ties can be dissolved, rd aTrav are examples of one-sided divorce, in

\vt6v, Nov. 22, § 3.^ — It is interest- tbeformof a letter of repudiation from
ing to read records of actual divorces, tbe husband to tbe wife, the former
Thus m P. Cairo, ii. No. 67154, we in tbe year 56S, the latter undated,
have a contract of divorce by mutual ^ of Justm is included in

consent between FI, Callinicus, a tbe collection of Justinian’s Novels:
notary, and Aurelia Gyra. They Not’, 140, a.d. 566.
state that they have quarrelled, they ® O. T/k iii. 16. 1 (a.d. 331).

ascribe their quarrel to a malignant ^ IL 2 (a.d. 421). If a woman

demon {o-KaLou Baljiiovos), and agree to divorced her husband for immorality
separate permanently by the “ written or faults that were not legally bemous,
contract of dissolution which has the she forfeited the rio 5 and donatio,
force of a repudmm.^^ It is agreed and could not remarry; a man who
that they are to have the care of divorced his wife for culpa vforum
their son Anastasius in common (dvd non crimmutn, might remarry after
/Ncrov d/i,(porepwi/). This amicable two years. In other cases, Con-
document is signed for the wife stantine’s penalties remained in force,
(who cannot write) and by several ® Theodosius, Noi?, 12, a. d. 439.

408 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

this triumpli of reason and tradition was precarious and brief.
Ten years later, tlie same Emperor, under contrary influence, did
not indeed venture to revive the stringent laws which he had
abolished, but attempted a compromise between the old Eoman
practice and the wishes of the Church.^ He multiplied the legiti-
mate grounds for divorce. If a man was condemned for any
one of nine or ten serious crimes, if he introduced immodest
women into his home, if he attempted to take the life of Ms
consort or chastise her like a slave, she was justified in repudiating
him. If she dissolved the marriage on any other ground, she
was forbidden to remarry for five years.^ A woman, guilty of
similar crimes, might be divorced, or if she sought her husband’s
hfe, or spent a night abroad without good cause, or attended
public spectacles against his command. He might divorce her
for adultery, but she could not divorce Mm. The husband who
dissolved the marriage for any other than the specified reasons,
was obliged to restore the dowry and the donation.

In his early legislation Justinian made no serious change in
the law of Theodosius, but he added some new grounds for
divorce, permitting a marriage to be dissolved if the husband
proved to be impotent, or if either partner desired to embrace
an ascetic life.^ But the Emperor soon repented of the compara-
tive liberality of these enactments, and his final law, which deals
comjnehensively with the whole subject, exhibits a new spirit of
rigour, though it does not altogether revive the tyrannical jpolicy
of Constantine.^ The causes for which a husband may dissolve
the miion and retain the dowry, and for which a wife may dis-
solve it and receive the dowry with the donation, are reduced
in number;^ no release is allowed for a partner guilty of a
public crime, except in the case of treason. A woman who
repudiates her husband on other than the legal grounds is to be
delivered to the bishop and consigned to a monastery. A man,
in the same case, suffers only in his pocket. He forfeits the

^ CJ, V. 17. S, A,D. 449. » GJ, V. 17. 10 and 11 ; Nov, 22

^ xlnastashts reduced this to one (536).
year, a.d, 497, ib. 9. The woman ^ Wo?’. 117 (542).

of course forfeited both dowry and ® But some new causes are added

donation. It may be mentioned that in the wife’s favour; she may
Justinian enacted (Nov. 97) that the dissolve the marriage if her husband
amount of the donation shall be is persistently and flagrantly un-
exactly equal to that of the dowry; faithful, if he falsely accuses her of
this was due to the influence of Clreek adultery, or if he is detained in
law, Collinet, op- cit. 145 sqq, captivity in a foreign country.

xxni

CIVIL LAW

409

dowry, the donation, and a further sum equal to one-third of
the donation. But this disparity of treatment was afterwards
altered, and the husband was also liable to incarceration in a
monastery.^

The general tenor of these enactments of Justinian, though
they were temporarily set aside in the eighth and ninth centuries,
remained in force throughout the later period of the Empire, and
the ecclesiastics never succeeded in bringing the civil into har-
mony with the canonical law which pronounced marriage in-
dissoluble, and penalised a divorced person who married again as
guilty of adultery.

This was perhaps the only department in which the Church
exercised an influence on the civil law\ It did not aim at nor
desire any change in the laws concerning slaves, for slavery was
an institution which it accepted and approved.^ In practice, of
course, it encouraged mitigation of the slave’s lot, but there it
was merely in accord with general public opinion. Enlightened
pagans had been just as emphatic in their pleas for humanity
to slaves as enlightened Christians,^ and for the growing improve-
ment in the conditions of slavery since the days of Cicero, the
Stoics are perhaps more responsible than any other teachers.
In this connexion it may be added, though it does not concern
the civil law, that the Church happily failed to force upon the
State its unpractical policy of prohibiting the lending of money
at interest.^ In the sphere of criminal law, as we shall now see,
it intervened effectively.

§3. Criminal Law

The criminal law of the Empire, which was chiefly based on
the legislation of Sulla, Pompey, and Augustus, had been little
altered or developed under the Principate ; ^ and the Cornelian

^ Nov. 134, § 11 (556). 'Dill observes {Mom an Society, p. 136) :

- For the views of tlie Fathers and ‘‘ The contempt for slaves exfirossed
the Church on slavery see Carlyle by S. Jerome and Salvianns is not

(R. W. and A. J.), History of the shared by the characters of Maero-

Mediaeval Political Theory in the bins.”

IFes^, i. 116 6‘gg. ; ii. 117 A full ^ On laws on interest see above,

history of the Roman Law of Slavery Vol. I. p. 55, n. 1 ; Vol. 11'. p. 357.
will be fomid m W. W. Buckland’s ^ Boman jiuisjjrudence did not
treatise with that title (1908). diw a capital distiucthui between

Take, for instance, the views civil and criminal law. W'hat corre-
expressed by the pagan Fraetextatus sponds to our criminal law canio
in the Saturnalia oiM8,Gmhius {L 11). partly under private (jn'icata delicta)

410 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

laws on murder and forgery, tlie Pompeian law^ on parricide, the
Julian laws on treason, adultery, violence, and peculation, were
still the foundation of the law which was in force in the reign of
Justiniam Such minor changes as had been made before the
reign of Constantine were generally in the direction of increased
severity. This tendency became more pronounced under the
Christian Emperors. Two fundamental changes were introduced
by these rulers by the addition of two new items to the list of
fuMio crimes, seduction and heresy ; but in those domains of
crime which we should consider the gravest there were no
important alterations.^

Ordinary murder,^ for instance, was punished by banishment ^
under Justinian as under Augustus, and in the penalties for
treason, arson, sorcery, forgery and kindred offences, theft and
robbery in their various forms, violence, false witness, there was
little change. In contrast with this conservatism, a new spirit
animated Constantine and his successors in their legislation on
sexual offences, and the inhuman rigour of the laws by which
they attempted to suppress sexual immorality amazes a modern
reader of the Codes of Theodosius and Justinian. Adultery,
which in civilised countries to-day is regarded as a private
wrong for which satisfaction must be obtained in the civil courts,
had been elevated by Augustus to the rank of a public offence,
and the injured husband who let the adulterer go free or com-

partly under public law (publica Imperial Council, and all Imperial
indicia). See Digest, Bks. 47, 48 ; officials. Previously only magistrates
Instil, iv. 18; C.J. Bk. 9; G. Th. (consuls, praetors, etc.) were protected
Bk. 9. The subject is treated ex- from personal violence by the law
haustively in Mommsen’s oi perduelUo.

StrafrechL ^ Except in the case of parricide

^ Three legislative acts may be (murder of near relatives), for which
noticed. (I) EorpZar/ittm (which may Constantine (O. 77^. ix. 15. 1) revived
be roughly translated “kidnapping”), the ancient punishment of the cvllens,
the penalty before Constantine had or sack, in which the criminal was
been exile with confiscation of half sewn up in the society of snakes
the property of the condemned. (serpentuni contubernUs mdsceatur) and
Constantine made it death, G, Th. drowned.

ix. 18. 1, but Justmian allowed this ^ Originally banishment from Italy
punisliment ojily in aggravated cases with “ interdiction of fire and W'ater.”
{Inst. iv. 18). (2) Anonymous libel- Under the Principate deportation to
ious i^ublications : Constantine made an island replaced' this penalty. But
the penalty death instead of deporta- the statement in text applies
tion, G. Th. ix. 34, but Justinian only to freemen of the better classes ;
rejected this law. (3) Arcadius {G. TJi. death was inflicted not only on slaves,
ix. 14. 3) extended the law of 7naiestas but also on men of the lownr classes —
(treason) to include attacks on the , a distinction -whieh will be explained
persons of senators, members of the below.

XXIII

CRIMINAL LAW

411

pounded witli him for the injury, was liable to the same penalty
as if he had himself committed the crime. The penalt}?- consisted
in the deportation of the guilty partners to separate islands.
Augustus assuredly did not err on the side of leniency, but his
severity did not satisfy Constantine, who made death the penalty
of adultery.^ , Perhaps this law was seldom , enforced ; ^ and
Justinian relaxed it by condemning the guilty female to be
immured in a nunnery.^ The crime of incest, or marriage of
persons within forbidden degrees, was usually punished by de-
portation ; the Christian Emperors sought both to aggravate the
penalty and to extend dhe prohibitions.' Constantine imposed
the penalty of death on marriage with a niece, ^ and forbade
unions with a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s
brother.® The savage legislator Theodosius I. prohibited the
marriage of first cousins, and decreed for those who were guilty
of this or any of the other forbidden alliances, the penalty of
being burned alive and the confiscation of their property.^ There
were limits to the patience of the Eoman public under the
autocracy. Theodosius was not long in his grave before his
son Arcadius cancelled these atrocious penalties,'^ and some years
later the same Emperor rescinded the prohibition of the marriage
of cousins.®

The abduction of a female for immoral purposes, if not accom-
panied by violence, was, under the Principate, regarded as a
private injury which entitled the father or husband to bring an
action. Constantme made the abduction of women a public
crime of the most heinous Idnd,^ to be punished by death in a
painful form. The woman> if she consented, was liable to the
vsame penalty as her seducer ; if she attempted to resist, the
lenient lawgiver only disquahfied her from inheriting. If the
nurse who was in charge of a girl were proved to have encouraged
her to yield to a seducer, molten lead was to be poured into

^ O. Th. ix. 7. Ij, 2 ; ii. 36. 4. In ^ O. Th in. 12. 1. Clandins had
hist. iv. IS the death penalty is permitted, and set the example of,
erroneously ascribed to the Lex Inlia. the union of a niece with her father's
The texts which Mommsen cites to brother,
show that this penalty had been ^ Ib. 2,

introduced in the tliird eentui'y (o^. ® Ambrose, Up. 60 ; C. Tit. iii. 12.

cit, 699, n. 3) do not appear to be 3 (cp. Augustine, xv. 16).

decisive. G, Th. ib. (a.d. 396).

- Am miaiius (xxviii. L 16) mentions ^ C. TJi. v. 4. 19 (a.d. 405); cp.
one case, but as an instance of the histit.i. 10. 4.

inhuman cruelty of Vaientinian I, ® See Mommsen, o-p. cit. 701-702 :

3 AMi;. 77 ; 141. , ; C. Th. ix. 24. 1.

412 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

her mouth and throat, to close the aperture through which the
wicked suggestions had emanated. Parents who connived at
abduction were punished by deportation. This astonishing law,
with slight mitigation,^ remained in force, and was extended to
the seduction of women who had taken vows of chastity.
Justinian made a new law on the subject, but the essential pro-
visions were the same.^

Unnatural vice was pursued by the Christian monarchs with
the utmost severity. Constantins imposed the death penalty
on both culprits, and Theodosius the Great condemned persons
guilty of this enormity to death by fire.^ Justinian, inspired by
the example of the chastisement which befell '' those who
formerly lived in Sodom,” and firmly believing that such crimes
were the immediate causes of famines, plagues, and earthquakes,
was particularly active and cruel in dealing with this vice. In
his laws,^ he contented himself with imposing the penalty of
death, but in practice he did not scruple to resort to extraordinary
punishments. It is recorded that senators and bishops who
were found guilty were shamefully mutilated, or exquisitely
tortured, and paraded through the streets of the capital before
their execution.^

The disproportion and cruelty of the punishments, which
mark the legislation of the autocracy in regard to sexual crimes,
and are eminently unworthy of the legal reason of Eome, w^ere
due to ecclesiastical influence and the prevalence of extravagant
ascetic ideals. That these bloodthirsty laws were in accord with
ecclesiastical opinion is shown by the code which a Christian

^ G. Th. ix. 24. 2. (Julian punished
the offence by banishment, Ammianus,
xvL 5. 12.)

2 CJ. ix. 13. 1.

3 G, Til, ix. 7. 3 and G. In the
third century the seduction of a
pLier pmetexiaius was punished by
death {Digest^ xlvii. 11. 1, 2). Meas-
ures, but we do not Imow what, were
taken by the Emperor Philip to
suppress "this vice (EisL Aug. xviii.
24. 4).

4 Nov. Ti ; 141.

^ John Malalas, xviii. p. 436 ;
Procopius, ILA. 11, ad fin . ; Theo-
dosius of Melitene, Citron* p. 90

roc? jxh iKavXoTop.no'^ 06 KoKdiJLOvs
e/ji^dXK€cr0aL els Toijs irdpovs tS>v
aWoLOJv iK^Xsverey Kal yvfxpoijs Kwrd

TT]p dyopdv 6pLapif^ev€o-daL. Cp. Michael
Syrus, ix. 26. The enemies of
Justinian alleged that the trials
were a farce, that men were con-
demned on the single testimonj^ of
one man or boy, who was often a
slave ; and the victims were selected
because they belonged to the Green
Faction, or were very rich, or had
given some offence to the Emperor
(Procop. he. cii:)- Mo account was
taken by the la^v of female homo-
sexuality. Abbesses were obliged to
take precautions against it in nun-
neries. Sec the Epistle of Paul
Helladicus, abbot of Elusa (p. 21),
one of the most unsavoury docu-
ments of Christian monasticism. He
lived in the sixth century.

XXIII

CRIMINAL LA W

missionary, untrammelled by Roman law, is reported to have
imposed on tlie unfortunate inhabitants of Southern Arabia.

We saw how in the reign of Justin, Christianity was established
in the kingdom of the Hiniyarites by the efforts of the Christian
king of Ethiopia. When Abram was set upon the throne,
Gregeiitius was sent from Alexandria to be the bishop of Safar,
the chief city of the Himyarites.^ The laws which Gregentiiis
drew up in the name of Abram are preserved. Doubts of their
authenticity have been entertained ; but even if they were
never issued or enforced, they illustrate the kind of legislation
at which the ecclesiastical spirit, unchecked, would have aimed.
It is characteristic that sexual offences occupy a wholly dis-
proportionate part of the code. Fornication was punished by
a hundred stripes, the amputation of the left ear, and confiscation
of property. If the crime was committed with a woman who
was in the potestas of a man, her left breast was cut off and
the male sinner was emasculated. Similar but rather severer
penalties were inflicted on adulterers. Procurers were liable to
amputation of the tongue. Public singers, harp-players, actors,
dancers, were suppressed, and any one found practising these
acts was punished by whipping and a year’s hard labour. To
be burned alive was the fate of a sorcerer. ^ Severe penalties
were imposed for failing to inform the public authorities of a
neighbour’s misconduct. On the ground of St. Paul’s dictum
that the man is the head of the woman, cruel punishments were
meted out to women who ventured to deride men.^

Perhaps the greatest blot in Roman criminal law under the
Empire, judged by modern ideas, was the distinction which it
drew, in the apportionment of penalties, between different
classes of freemen. There was one law for the rich, and another
for the poor. A distinction between the honourable or respect-
able, and the humble or plebeian classes was legalised,^ and
different treatment was meted out in punishing criminals accord-
ing to the class to which they belonged. The privileged group

^ See above, p. 827. ® Eonesti, and liumiles {lenu lores,

2 Homerltaruni Leges, P.G, IxxxyI plebeii ; eireXeLs). Mommsen, op. clL
1, 581 sqq. One curious provision 1032 A member of the higher
regards early marriages ; parents classes could ])e degraded to tiie ihver
who do not arrange for the tntUTe {reiecim^^ C. Th. vi. 22. 1.

marriage of their children when they The distmctlon was based on status,
are between the ages of ten and twelve not’ on income, but it virtually dis-
are liable to a fine. orimmated the richer from the poorer.

414 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

included persons of senatorial and equestrian birtli, soldiers,
veterans, deciirions and the children of decurions ; and on such
persons milder penalties were inflicted than on their fellow-
citizens of inferior status. They were, in general, exempt from
the degrading and painful punishments which were originally
reserved for slaves. If a man of the higher status, for instance,
issued a forged document, he was deported, while the same crime
committed by a poor man was punished by servitude in the
minesd The general principle, indeed, of this disparity of
treatment was the extension of servile punishments to the free
proletariate, and it appears also in the use of torture for the
extraction of evidence. Under the Eepublic freemen could not
be legally tortured, but under the Empire the question was
applied to men of the lower classes as well as to slaves.^

The normal mode of inflicting death on freemen was decapita-
tion by the sword. But more painful modes of execution were
also prescribed for certain oflences,® Sorcerers, for instance,
were burnt alive, and deserters to the enemy incurred the same
penalty, or the gallows. In some cases, as for treason, the
painful death was inflicted only on people of the lower class ; ^
and in some, persons of this status were put to death while
persons of higher rank got off with a sentence of deportation.
The privileged classes were also exempted from the punishment
of being destroyed by wild beasts in the arena. Next to death,
the severest penalty was servitude in the mines for life, or for
a limited period. This horrible fate was never inflicted on the
better classes. They were punished by deportation to an island,
or an oasis in the desert.®

^ In many cases death was inflicted
on the humilm where the Jionesti were
only deported. See the table show-
ing the disparity of punishments in
the first half of the third century
(based on the Sententim of Baulus),
in Mommsen, op. cit. sqq.

- Mommsen, 406 sq. In cases of
treason, and magic, and forgery,
indeed, any citizen might be tortured,
and many instances are recorded.

® Such modes are often designated
in the dk,s, summtim sicppUcvmn.
Four are recognised under the auto-
cracy ; (1) the gallows, furca ; (2)
fire ; (3) the sack, for parricides ;

this had fallen out of use but was

revived by Constantine ; (4) exposure
to wild beasts ; this was an alternative
to (1) or (2) and could be inflicted only
when there happened to be a popular
spectacle immediately after the con-
demnation. Crucifixion was discon-
tinued under the Christian emperors.

^ Cp. Digest, xlviii. 19. 28. The
milder form of banishment {relegatio)
allowed to the condemned a choice
of the place of his domicile, and did
not involve disfranchisement.

® Penal servitude and deportation,
when they involved disfranchisement,
were classified as capital punishments.
All capital punishments involved con-
fiscation of property.

XXIII CRIMINAL LAW 415

Mutilation does not appear to have been recognised as a legal
penalty under the Principate, but it may sometimes have been
resorted to as an extraordinary measure by the express sentence
of an Emperor. It first appears in an enactment of Constantine
ordaining that the tongue of an informer should be torn out
by the root.^ Leo I. condemned persons who were implicated
in the murder of Proterius, patriarch of Alexandria, to excision
of the tongue and deportation.^ In the sixth century, mutila-
tion became more common, and Justinian recognises amputation
of the hands as a legal punishment in some of his later enactments.
Tax-collectors who falsify their accounts and persons who copy
the writings of Monophysites are threatened with this pain.®
And we have records of the infliction of a like punishment on
other criminals.^ This practice seems to have been prompted
by the rather childish idea that, if the member which sinned
suffered, the punishment w^as fitly adjusted to the crime.®
Amputation of the nose or tongue was frequently practised, and
such penalties afterwards became a leading feature in Byzantine
criminal law, and were often inflicted as a mitigation of the
death penalty. When these punishments and that of blinding
are pointed to as one of the barbarous and repulsive characters
of Byzantine civilisation, it should not be forgotten that in the
seventeenth century it w^as still the practice in England to loj)
off hands and ears.

It must be remembered that a considerable latitude w^as
allowed to the judges (praetors, prefects, provincial governors)
in passing sentences on culprits.® The penalties prescribed in
the laws were rather directions for their guidance than hard and
fast sanctions. They were expected to take into account
circumstances which aggravated the guilt, and still more circum-
stances which extenuated it. For instance, youth, intoxication,
an ethical motive were considered good reasons for mitigating

^ 0. Th. X. 10. 2; it is not quite gambling, a.d. 429 ; but no physical
clear whether this was to be done penalty is enacted in the law of this
before or after death (strangulation year against gambling in O.J. iii.
on the gallows). A later law reduced 43. 2), 48.3, 488.

the penalty to death by the sword, ® Cp. C, Th, x. 10. 2; and Zonaras,
ib. 10. xiy. 7, 2, where Justinian is reported

“ Theophanes, a.m, 5951, to have justified Ms punishment of

® Nov. 17, § 8; 42, § 1. Cp. Nov. paederasty on this principle. The
134, § 13, where it is forbidden to same idea maj?' have dictated the
punish theft by cutting off oiovd'OTrore punishment of incendiaries l;)y lire.

^ Gn this subject see 'Mommsen,
^ John Mai. xviii. pp. 451 (for o;p. cU. 10Z7 sqq.

416 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE ch. xxiii

penalties, and women were generally treated more leniently than
men.

On the whole, the Eoman system, from Augustus to Justinian,
of protecting society against evil-doers and correcting the
delinquencies of frail humanity, can hardly arouse much ad-
miration, It was, indeed, more reasonable and humane than
the criminal law of England before its reform in the nineteenth
century. Its barbaric features were due either indirectly to
the institution of slavery, or to the influence of the Church
in those domains which especially engaged the interest of
ecclesiastics. Augustus and his successors definitely stemmed
the current of tendency which in the last period of the Republic
promised entirely to do away wuth capital punishment, but
they did not introduce any new reasonable principle into the
theory or practice of criminal law. Wider extension of the
field of pubhc crimes, increasing severity in the penalties, and
differential treatment of citizens of the lower classes, are the
most conspicuous features of the development of criminal Justice
under the Empire,

CHAPTEE XXIV

PROCOPIUS

Throughout the fiftli century there wera Greek historians
writing the history of their own times, and, if their witiiigs had
survived, we should possess a fairly full record of events, particu-
larly in the East, from the accession of Arcadius to the reign of
Zeno. And it would have been a consecutive record, or at
least there would have been only one or two short gaps. The
bitter pagan sophist Eunapius of Sardis carried down his history,
composed in his old age, to a.d. 404.^ Olympiodorus, a native
of Egyptian Thebes, began his book at a.d. 407 and went down
to A.D. 425.^ The work of Priscus of Panion (near Heraclea
on the Propontis) probably began about a.d. 434 and ended
with the death of Leo I. Malchus, of the Syrian Philadelphia,
continued Priscus, and embraced in his work either the whole
or a part of the reign of Zeno.^ But all these histories have
perished. Some of the information they contained passed into
later writers ; for instance, Zosimus, who wrote towards the
end of the fifth century, derived much of his material for the
later portion of his work from Eunapius and Olympiodorus.'^

^ Eunapius designed his history as a at 480, but Siiidas sub nomine says
continuation of that of Dexippus which that he went dow'n to the reign of
ended at 270. The evidence does Anastasius. He certamly -wrote after
not point to any continuity between the death of Zeno, to whom he -was
him and Olympiodorus, or between hostile.

Olympiodorus and Priscus. ^ After a brief survey of the earlier

“Olympiodorus w^as a traveUer Empire, Zosimus began his fuiicr
and a poet. He was sent on an narrative about A. D. 270. He is the
embassy in 412 to Donatus, a Hunnio only important historian who wrote
prince of whom otherwise we know non-contemporary history in the
nothing. fifth and sixth centuries, except

® h'rom the evidence of the excerpts Peter the Patrician — the diploruatist
and the notice of Photius, 78, and Master of Offices — wdio composed
we should conclude that he stopped a History of the Homan Empire from

418 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

But of the original texts we possess only excerpts which in many
cases are mere summaries/ The ecclesiastical histories written
by the orthodox laymen, Socrates and Sozomen, about the
middle of the century, have fared better ; we have them intact ;
and fortunately they include notices of secular events rather
capriciously selected,^

The fragments of these lost historians enable us to judge
that Prisons is a greater loss than any of the rest. The long
fragment on Attila and his court, of which a translation was
given in an earlier chapter, shows that he was a master of narra-
tive, and the general impression we get is that he was the
ablest Roman historian between Ammian and Procopius.

"Why did aU these works disappear ? Some of them survived
till the ninth and tenth centuries, but were doubtless extremely
rare then, and no more copies were made from the one or two
copies that existed. The probability is that they never had a
wide circulation, and it is fair to ascribe this partly to the fact
that their authors were pagans.^ But there is another reason
which may partly account for the loss of some of these historians,
and may also explain the character of the excerpts which have
come down. In the ninth and following centuries the Greeks
were interested in the past history of the Illyrian peninsula
and in the oriental wars with the Persians, which were .fought
on the same ground as the contemporary wars with the Moslems ;
they were not interested in the history of Italy and the West.
Now in the fifth century, with the exception of one or two short
and unimportant episodes of hostility, there was hardly anything
to tell of the oriental frontier, so that the portions of historians
like Priscus and Malchus that had a living interest for readers
were those which dealt with the invaders and devastators of
the Balkan provinces. And so we find that the most consider-

Augustus to Julian. Of this we have the worics of heretics had little chance
fragments, some of which — 'known as of surviving,
the anonymous continuation of Bio

Cassius— have only recently been ^ This is not so clear in the case
connected with Peter’s work, by of Priscus, but his friendship with the
C. de Boor, jy£(ga^n Maximin establishes a pre-

B.Z. i. 13 sqg., 1892. sumption. The sympatliies of Mai-

] For secular history Theodoret’s chus were plainly Neoplatonic, as is
Ecdesiastkal History is almost negli- shown by his treatment of Pam-
gible ; it has hardly anjdhing that is prepius, and his designation of Proelus
not in Socrates or Soziomen. The as “ the great Proelus.”— It is curious
work of Philostorgius, the Eunomian, that the aggressively pagan work of
is a real loss, as the fragments show ; Zosimus survived.

XXIV

419

PROCOPIUS

able fragments of Prisons, preserved in the summaries and
selections that were made in the ninth and tenth centuries,
relate to the doings of the Huns, and the most considerable
fragments of Malchus to the doings of the Ostrogoths. It is, in
fact, probable that these extracts represent pretty fully the in-
formation on these topics given by both writers. On the other
hand, it is significant that the Gallic and Italian campaigns,
which Prisons must certainly have described, were passed over
by those who made the selections.^

That there is almost as much to tell about thirty years of
the sixth century, as there is about the whole of the fifth, is due
partly to Justinian’s activity as a legislator, but chiefly to the
pen of Procopius. It was one of the glories of Justinian’s age
to have produced a writer who must be accounted the most
excellent Greek historian since Polybius. Procopius was a
native of Caesarea, the metropolis of the First Palestine. He
was trained to be a jurist, and we have seen how he was appointed
in A.B. 627 councillor to Belisarius,^ how he accompanied him
in his Persian, African, and Italian campaigns, and how he was
in Constantinople when the city was ravaged by the plague.
He was not with Belisarius in his later campaigns in the East,
and it is improbable that he revisited Italy.^

His writings attest that Procopius had received an excellent
literary education. There is nothing which would lead us to
suppose that he had studied either at Athens or at Alexandria,
and it seems most probable that he owed his attainments to the

^ Perhaps the clearest illustration
of the point is that, if the works of
Procopius had been lost, we should
know a great deal about his Persian
Wars, but very little about his
Vandalic and Gothic Wars ; for
Photiiis, in his Bibliotheca^ gives a
long account of the former, but none
of the latter.

“ Haury argues that he was not a
jurist {Zur Beurteilimg, etc., p. 20),
but he is not convincing. For the
post of consUiarius {^{i/jLjSovXos)

O.J, L 51. 11. Cp, Dahn, Brohopius,

pp. 10-20.

® It is indeed possible that Proco-
pius was with Belisarius in 541,
though it seems more probable that
his place had been taken by George
{BP, ii. 19. 22 ; cp. Haury, f 6,).

Balm leaves it open {ih. p. 30)
whether he was in Italy after 542.
Haury has argued that ho went to
Italy in 546, because he relates the
events of 546-547 at greater length
than those of the other years of the
Second Italian W^ar {Procopiana^ i.
8^9). But this is not very convincing.
It ax^pears j^robablc to me that he
lived at Constantinople continuously
a.fter^is return from Italy, and there
collected from officers, am bassath^rs,
etc., the material which he requirccl
for his His tor If, both in the East and
in the West froju 541 to 553. Haury
thinks that he wrote his History ill
Caesarea (ib, 26), but it would have
been difficult for him there to have
obtained regularly first-hand ami
detailed information about the war in
Italy,

420 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

professors of the university of Constantinople. It has indeed
been held that he was educated at Gaza/ but this theory rests
on no convincing external evidence, and the internal evidence
of his style does not bear out the hypothesis that he ever sat
at the feet of his namesake Procopius and the other sophists of
Gaza. We know a good deal about that euphuistic literary
school.

It may be conjectured that Procopius formed the design of
writing a history of the wars, of which Belisarius was the hero,
at the time of the expedition against the Vandals, and that he
commenced then to keep a written record of events.® He had

^ This theory of Haury (oj?. cit) is have been recorded. The known
closely connected with a theory as facts do not i:)oint to any connexion
to his parentage. Haury argues mth Gaza. And it is to be observed
that he was the son of Stephanus, a that the theory involves tioo con-
leading citizen of Caesarea, who, jectural identifications : that of the
before A. D. 526, held the post of historian with the Procopius who
astynomos or commissioner of public married the girl of Ascalon, and that
works, won distinction by restoring of this Procopius with the son of
the aqueduct which supplied the Stephanus.

city, and in 536 was appointed ^ The account of the First Persian
proconsul of the First Palestine War (H.P. i. 12-22) is so (compara-
(Choricius, Epitlial. p. 22 ; In Arat tively) brief and hioomplete that we
et Stephamm, § 10; Justinian, Nov, may perhaps infer that he had not
103, § 1; Aeneas Gaz. Ep. 11). form.ed the plan of writing a history
Stephanus was a friend of Procopius of it during its progress. The chrono^
of Gaza, and sent his son to be logy of the composition of his works
educated there (Procopius, Ep, 18), has been cleared up by the researches
This unnamed son Haury identifies of Haury (Procopiafia, i.). In the
with a Procopius who married a young latter part of 545 he was writing B,P,
woman of Ascalon, wealthy and of i. 25. 43 ; B,G. i. 24. 32 (cp. Proco-
good family; two of his fellow- piana, ii. p. 5) ; and ii, 5. 26-27.
students married at the same time ; These passages indicate that he
and Choricius wTote an (extant) contemplated this year as the termhia-
epitlialamion for the occasion. In tion of his history, and if he had then
the Samaritan revolt of a.d. 556, published it, it would have consisted
Stephanus was murdered by the of B.P, L-ii. 28, 11; P.F., except
rebels in his court house. His wife the last two pages; B.G, i.-iii. 15.
went to Constantinople and besought He may have circulated what he
Justinian to punish the murderers, had written among his acquaintances,
The -Emperor did her justice promi)tly, but he continued to add to it from
ordering Amantius, Master of Soldiers year to year, without changing what
ill the East, to search them out, and he had already written, and finally
they -^vere executed (John Mai. Jr. 48, published the" seven Books of the
De ins.). In this incident Haury Wars, as they stand, in 550. In the
finds the explanation of the revolu- same year he wrote the Secret History.
tion in the attitude of Procopius In 553 he published the eighth and
towards Justinian between 550 and last Book of the Wars. In 560 he
560. The theory is ingenious, but wrote the Pc as is proved

much more evidence Avould be needed by the mention of the building of the
to make it probable. It is difficult bridge over the Sangarius (vI 3. 10)
to believe that, if Procopius had been which was built in 550-560 (Theoph.
the son of such a notable civil servant a.m. 6052). On tliis bridge cp.
as Stephanus, the fact would not Anderson, J. If. xix. 66 A'7.

XXIV

PROCOPIUS

421

certainly begun to compose his history immediately after his
return from Italy with Belisarius, for he states that, as that
generaFs councillor, he had personal knowledge of almost all
the events which he is about to relate, a statement which would
not be true of the later camj)aigns. While he is studiously
careful to suppress feeling, he gives the impression, in his
narrative of the early wars, that he sympathised with Justinian’s
military enterprises, and viewed with satisfaction the exploits
of Belisarius. As to Justinian himself he is reticent; he may
sometimes imply blame; he never awards praise. The sequel dis-
illusioned him. He was disappointed by the inglorious struggles
with Chosroes and Totila, and by the tedious troubles in Africa ;
and his attitude of critical approbation changed into one of
bitter hostility towards the government. His vision of his own
age as a period of unexpected glory for the Empire faded away,
and was replaced by a nightmare, in which Justinian’s reign
appeared to him as an era of universal ruin. Seeking to explain
the defeat of the early prospects of the reign, he found the causes
ill the general system of government and the personalities of the
rulers. The defects of the Imperial administration, especially
in the domain of finance, were indeed so grave, that it would
have been easy to frame a formidable indictment without
transcending the truth, or setting down aught in malice ; but
with Procopius the abuses and injustices which came to his
notice wmrked like madness on his brain, and regarding the
Emperor as the common enemy of mankind he was ready to
impute the wmrst of motives to all his acts.

We may divine that the historian went through a mental
process of this nature between a.d. 540 and 550, but wm cannot
believe that pure concern for the public interests is sufficient
to explain the singular and almost grotesque malignity of the
impeachment of Justinj.an and all Ms works, which he drew up
at the end of the decade. Any writer who indulges in such an
orgy of hatred as that which amazes us m. Seofet Mister y,
exposes himself to the fair suspicion that he has personal reasons
for spite. We hardly run much risk of doing an injustice to
Procopius if we assume that he was a disappointed man. One
who had occupied a position of intimate trust by the side of
the conqueror of Africa and Italy could not fail to entertain
hopes of preferment to some administrative post. But he w^as

4^2 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

passed over. Tlie influence of Belisarins, if it was exerted in
his favour, did not avail, and from being a friendly admirer of
his old patron he becanae a merciless critic.

In a book which was intended to be published and to establish
a literary reputation, Procopius could not venture to say openly
what was in his mind. But to an attentive reader of his
narrative of the later wars there are many indications that he
disapproved of the Imperial policy and the general conduct of
affairs. His History of the Wars -was divided into seven bodes,
and the material, on the model of Appian, was arranged geo-
graphically. Two books on the Persian War brought the story
down to A.D. 548, two on the Vandalic War embraced events in
Africa subsequent to the conquest and reached the same date.
The three books of the Gothic War terminated in a.d. 551. It
was probably the final defeat of Totila in a.d. 562 that moved
the author afterwards to complete his work by adding an eighth
book, in which, abandoning the geographical arrangement, he
not only concludes the story of the Italian War, but deals with
military operations on every front from a.d. 548 to 553.

AVe shall presently see that in the later parts of this work
the historian went as far as prudence permitted in condemning
the policy of Justinian. But in a.d. 550 he secretly committed
to writing a sweeping indictment of the Emperor and the late
Empress, of their private lives and their public actions. It was
a document which he must have preserved in his most secret
hiding-place, and which he could read only to the most faithful
and discreet of his friends. It could never see the light till
Justinian was safely dead, and if he were succeeded by a
nephew or cousin, its publication even then might be impossible.
As a matter of fact we may suspect that his heirs withheld it
from circulation, and that it was not published till a consider-
able time had elapsed. For it was unknown to the writers of
the next generation, unless wd suppose that they deliberately
ignored it. ^

The introduction to Secret History ^ states that its object

1 Some Imve supposed that Eva- date of composition was 559, because

grins was acquainted with it, but it w'as written in the thirty-second
the evidence is quite unconvincing, year of Justinian’s regime {H.A.
The earliest reference to the work 18. 33 ; 23. 1 ; 24. 29). But it is
is in Suidas (tenth century), s.v. a fundamental part of the thesis
npo/fOTTios. He calls it the of Procopius that Justinian was the

2 It used to be supposed that the real governor ((5t<^;A:97<7-aro rij?/ xoXireiaid

XXIV

PROCOPIUS

423

is to supplement the History of the Wars by an account of things
that happened in all parts of the Empire, and to explain certain
occurrences which in that work had been barely recorded, as it
was impossible to reveal the intrigues which lay behind them.
It is hinted that so long as Theodora was alive,^ it would have
been dangerous even to commit the truth to writing, for her
spies were ubiquitous, and discovery would have meant a miser-
able death. This reinforces other evidence which goes to prove
that Theodora was held in much greater fear than Justinian.

The thesis of the Secret History ^ is that in all the acts of his
public policy Justinian was actuated by two motives, rapacity
and an inhuman delight in evil-doing and destruction. In this
policy he was aided by Theodora, and if they appeared in
certain matters, such as religion, to pursue different ends, this
was merely a plot designed to hoodwink the public.^ Procopius
gravely asserts that he himself and ‘‘ most of us ’’ had come to
the conclusion that the Emperor and Empress were demons

throughout the reign of Justin, and
the thirty-second year is to be
reckoned from 518, not from 527.
This was first established by Haury
(Procop. i.). On the old view it
would be impossible to explain why
Procopius should have ignored all
the material which the events between
550 and 559 would have supplied
for his purpose. Gp. also Haury,
Zur Beurteilimg^ p. 37. The revised
date of the Secret History shows that
the first lines of the last Book of the
Wars (B.Q, iv.) %yere modelled on
the opening lines of M.A. and not
vice vers(x, Haury has suggested
that the author originally began
B.G, iv. with fjL^v odv {q. i. 3), and
afterwards added the preceding sen-
tences for the purpose of misleading
posterity, and suggesting that H.A.
was the work of an imitator. Con-
versely it might be argued that the
motive was to indicate identity of
authorship.

^ 1. 2 TTGpLWTu^p in rCiv aura GipycL-
must mean simply Theodora
{cp.16.3).

2 The book is badly arranged. A
preliminary section (1-5) is devoted
to Belisarius and the scandals con-
nected with his private life ; his
l)itiful uxoriousness, his weakness,

which leads him into breach of faith,
and his military failures. The next
subject is the family and character
of Justinian (6-8), and then the
author goes on to tell the scandalous
story of Theodora’s early life (9, 10).
He proceeds to characterise tho
revolutionary policy of the Emperor,
and to give a summary account of
his persecutions, his avarice, and
his unjust judgments (11-14). Then
he reverts again to Q^heodora, and
illustrates her power, her crimes, and
her cruelties (15-17). He goes on to
review the calamities and loss of life
brought not only upon hivS own
subjects, but also on the barbarians
by Justinian’s wars, as Avell as by
the pestilence, earthquakes, and in-
undations, for which he holds him
responsible (IS); and then enters
upon a merciless criticism of his
financial administration (19 - 23).
Various classes of society — the army,
the merchants, the precessions, the
proletariate — are then ])assed in re-
view, and it is shown that they are
all grievously oppressed (24-2r>).' Tlu'
last chapters arc occupied with
miscellaneous instances of cTuelly
and injustice (27-29), the decline of
the piihlicHs, and new servile

customs in court eticaiette (30).

3 10. 14.

424 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

in human form, and lie did not mean this as a figure of speech.^
He tells a number of anecdotes to substantiate the idea. Jus-
tinian’s mother had once said that she conceived of a demon.
He had been seen in the palace at night walking about without
a head, and a clairvoyant monk had once refused to enter the
presence chamber because he saw the chief of the demons
sitting on the throne. Before her marriage, Theodora had
dreamt that she would cohabit with the prince of the devils.
Even Justinian’s abstemious diet is adduced as a proof of his
non-human nature. It was a theory which did not sound so
ludicrous in the age of Procopius as in ours, and it enabled him
to enlarge the field of the Emperor’s mischievous work, by
imputing to his direct agency the natural calamities like earth-
quakes and plagues which afflicted manldnd during his reign.

In elaborating his indictment Procopius adopted two sophistic
tricks. One of these was to represent Justinian as responsible
for institutions and administrative methods which he had
inherited from his predecessors. The other was to seize upon
incidental hardships and abuses arising out of Imperial measures,
and to suggest that these were the objects at which the Emperor
had deliberately aimed. The unfairness of the particular criti-
cisms can in many cases be proved, and in others reasonably
suspected. But it may be asked wrhether the book deserves
any serious consideration as an historical document, except so
far as it illustrates the intense dissatisfaction prevailing in some
circles against the govermnent. The daemonic theory, the
pornographic story of Theodora’s early career, the self-defeating
maliciousness of the whole performance discredit the work, and
have even suggested doubts whether it could have been written
at all by the sober and responsible historian of the wars.^ The
authorship, however, is indisputable. No imitator could have
achieved the Procopian style of the Secret History^ and a com-
parison with the History of the Wars shows that in that work
after a.d. 541 the author makes or suggests criticisms which
are found, in a more explicit and lurid form, in the libel.

For in the public History he sometimes used the device of

^ 12. 14 sqq. ; IS. 1. Theodora's written by Procopius, but was partly
influence over her husband is ascribed based on a Procopian diary. The
to magic practices, 22. 27. Procopian style of the SeoM History

2 L. von Banke iv. is unmistakable and has been well

2. 300 sqq.) argued that it was not illustrated by Dahn, 257 tsgg., 416

XXIV

PROCOPIUS

425

putting criticism into tlie mouths of foreigners. One of the
prominent points in Secret History h Justinian’s love of innova-
tions; he upset established order, and broke with the traditions of
the past. The same character is given him in the ]3ublic History
by the Gothic ambassadors who went to the Persian Court.^
The motive of the speech which is attributed to the Utigiir
envoys in a.d. 652 is to censure the policy of giving large grants
of money to the trans-Daniibian barbarians, which is bitterly
assailed in the Secret History.^ Procopius indeed criticises it
directly by an irony which is hardly veiled. The Kotrigurs, he
says, receive many gifts every year from the Emperor, and,
even so, crossing the Danube they overrun the Emperor’s
territory continually,” ^ Although Justinian was here only
pursuing, though perhaps” on a larger scale, the inveterate
practice of Roman policy, his critic speaks as if it were a new
method which he had discovered for exhausting the resources
of the Empire. It is a subject of discussion,” he says, what
has happened to the wealth of the Romans. Some assert that
it has all passed into the hands of the barbarians, others think
that the Emperor retains it locked up in many treasure chambers.
"When Justinian dies, supposing him to be human, or when he
renounces his incarnate existence if he is the lord of the demons,
survivors will learn the truth.” ^

In the Secret History the Emperor is arraigned as the guilty
party in causing the outbreak of the second Persian War. In
the published History author could not say so, but goes as
far as he dares by refusing to say a word in his favour. Having
stated the charges made by Chosroes that Justinian had violated
the treaty of A.n. 532, he adds, Whether he was telling the truth,
I cannot say.”® On the peace of a.I). 561, which evidently
excited his indignation, he resorts to the same formula. Most
of the Romans were annoyed at this treaty, not unnaturally.
But whether their criticism was just or unreasonable I cannot

say.” ® Nor did the historian of the Vandalic War fail to

^ B.P. ii. 2. 0 petoTepoTTOLo^ re ^ H,A. 30. 33-34, the last words

(pvaeL . . . p,ip€cp re dvpdpLepos ev of the book.

To?s Ka0e<j7 Qenp op. H. A. 11. 1-2. See ■ ^ B,P. ii. 1. 15; B.A. II. 12.

also the remark in a speech of B.G. iv. 15. 13 (the author’s

Amiejihin envoys to Chosroes, :B.P. ii. opinion is cloariy suagosted ib. 7).
3. 38 TL ovK iKlv'}](T€ tCov KaOecTTwrcop ; His dissatisfactioji willi the particular

- B.G. iv. 19. 9 sqq. ; H.A. 11 . favour shown by Jiistmian to the
5. 7. Persian 611 VO v Isdiginia.s is not dis-

3 B.G. iv. 5. 16. ■ : . ■ ■ .guised, ik 19 '”20 ; B.P. ii. 28. 40-44.

426 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

suggest the same conclusion which is drawn in the Secret History
as to the consequences of the Imperial conquest. Having
recorded tlie victory of John, the brother of Pappus, over the
Moors in a.d. 548, he terminates his story with the remark,
“Thus, at last and hardly, to the survivors of the Libyans,
few and very destitute, there came a period of peace.” ^

In fact, the attitude of Procopius towards the government,
as it is guardedly displayed in the History of the Wars, is not
inconsistent with the general drift of the Secret History, and the
only reason for doubting the genuineness of the libel was the
presumption that the political '^dews in the two works were
irreconcilable. It is another question whether the statements
of the Secret History are credible. Here we must carefully
distinguish between the facts which the author records, and the
interpretation which he places upon them. Malice need not
resort to invention. It can serve its purpose far more success-
fully by adhering to facts, misrepresenting motives, and suppress-
ing circumstances which point to a different interpretation.
That this was the method followed by Procopius is certain. For
we find that in a large number of cases his facts are borne out
by other contemporary sources, ^ while in no instance can we

^ B, V. U. 28. 52. Other points of government is exposed in the case
comparison between the public and of the logotliete Alexander {ib. iii,
the Secret History may be noted. L 29}. More pointed is tlie re-
(I) The view of Justin’s reign as mark that John Tzibos was created
virtually part of Justinian’s, B. V. i. a general because he was the worst
9. 5 (Justin is VTrefiyypbis) : H.A. 6. of men, and understood the art of
11 (Justin is (2) Pessi- raising money, B.P, ii. 15. 10. The

mistic utterances as to the general criticism of Justinian that, though
situation, a.d. 541-549; il.P. ii. 21. well aware of the unpopularity of
34; B.G. hi. 33. 1. (3) Justinian’s Sergius in Africa, ova' ibs would he

slackness in prosecuting his wars is recall him, may be noted. (5) In
ascribed, in H.A. 18. 29, partly to holding up to reprobation tiie conduct
his avarice and partly to his occu- of the second Italian War by Beli-
pation with theological studies. The . sarius, the author of the libel has
latter reason is plainly assigned in only to rei)eat {ILA. 5. 1) what was
B.G. iii. 35. 11 jSaaiXevs Be ’IraXlas yh said in B.G. iii. 35. 1. Compare also
iTT'tjyy^XXero TTpovoTjaetp avros, ay(l)l the remaihs, xih. 15-19.

ra XpLCPTLavCsv dayyara iK rod eirl - E.g. (1) The iinscnipiilousness of
irXeicrToi' SiarpiAhv elxev, and is perhaps Theodora, is iilustrated by the episode
hinted at ib. 36. 6 dcrxoXias ol rerws of the Nobadae, above, p. 328 sqq. ;
eirtyevoyevT}^ erepai rivos ryvirpoOvyiav (2) the statements as to the intrigue
mriTrava'G. (The same ironical for- against Amalasuntha fit into the
inula is employed when the Em- other evidence, above, p. 165 ? (J)

peror failed to send money due to the connexion of Antonina with the
Gii hazes at the right time, iinyevo- episode of Silverius, cp. p. 37S ; (4)
oi dcrxoXias rivos:, B.P. ii. 29. John Eph. {Hist. ecc. i. c. 32) con-
32.) Cp. also B.G. iii. 32. 9. (4) firms the information that Antonina’s

The financial oppression of the Son Photius was a monk ; (5) the

XXIV

PROCOPIUS

427

convict liim of a statement wliicli has no basis in fact.^ We
have seen that even in the case of Theodora’s career, where his
charges have been thought particularly open to suspicion, there
is other evidence which suggests that she was not a model of
virtue in her youth. The Secret History therefore is a document
of which the historian is entitled to avail himself, but he must
remember that here the author has probably used, to a greater
extent than elsewhere, material derived from gossip which he
could not verify himself.

Procopius entertained the design of writing another book
dealing especially wdth the ecclesiastical policy of the reigii.^ If
the work was ever executed it is lost, but as there is no reference
to it in subsequent literature, it seems most probable that it
w'as never written. Among other things which the historian
promised to relate in it was the fate of Pope Silverius, concerning
which our extant records leave us in doubt as to the respective
responsibilities of Vigilius and Antonina. Apart from the facts
which it wmuld have preserved to posterity, the book would have
been of singular interest on account of the Laodicean attitude
of the author, who, whatever may have been his general opinion
of Christian revelation, Avas a Gallic in regard to the theological
questions which agitated the Church. “ I am acquainted with
these controversial questions,” he says somewhere, referring to
the Monophysite disputes, but I will not go into them. For I
consider it a sort of insane folly to investigate the nature of
God. Man cannot accurately apprehend the constitution of
man, how much less that of the Deity,” ^ The 'words imply an

story of Calliniciis, H,A. 17. 2, is the statement, II. A. 22. 38, that
confirmed by Evagrius, iv. 32 ; (6) the gold iiomisma was reduced in
that of Prisons, If. n. 16. 7, by John value, whicli is not in accordance
Mai. xviii. 449, and /r. 46, De ins. ; mth the numismatic evidence. But
(7) that of Theodotus by John Mai, even here it may be doubted \yiiother
xviii. 416 ; while (8) the story of Procopius had not some actual
Psoes, H.A. 27. 14, is consistent tempoi'ary or local fact in mind,
with ecclesiastical records. (9) The ^ intention can be inferred

laws referred to in the H.A. cm he from three passages in H.A. (1. 14;
vcrilied in the legal monuments of 11, 33 ; 26. 18), and from D.O.

the reign ; (10) the statements about iv. 25, 13, The fulfilment of the
religious persecutions accord with promise in H.A. 17. 14, to iell the
facts; and (11) in what is said, set[uel of the story of two young
H.A. 17. 5 of the attempts to wojnen who had " becui unhappily
repress ] prostitution, other evidence married, may possibly have ).>een also
shows that the author is only repre- reserved for* this hook, though tiH‘re
senting facts in a light tinfavourable is no hint that it had any tiling to d<.>
to the policy. with ecclesiastical affairs.

^ There is indeed an exception in ^ jB.€f. L 3. 6.

428 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

oblique bit at the Emperor who in the Secret History is described
as gratuitously busy about the nature of Godd That the book
would also have been a document of some significance in the
literature of toleration we may infer from a general remark
which Procopius makes on Justinian’s ecclesiastical policy.
“ Anxious to unite all men in the same opinion about Christ,
he destroyed dissidents indiscriminately, and that under the
pretext of piety ; for he did not think that the slaying of men
was murder unless they happened to share his own religious
opinions.” ^

An amazing change came to pass in the attitude of Procopius
between the year in which he composed the Secret History and
ten years later when he wrote his work on the Buildings, in
which he bestows on the policy and acts of the Emperor super-
lative praise which would astonish us as coming from the author
of the History of the Wars, even if the Secret History had been
lost or never written. The victories of Narses had probably
mitigated the pessimism into which he had fallen through the
failure of Belisarius and the long series of Totila’s successes ;
but it is difiScult to avoid the conjecture that he had received
some preferment or recognition from the Emperor.^ In the
opening paragraph of the Buildmgs there is a hint at private
motives of gratitude. ‘^ Subjects who have been well treated
feel goodwill towards their benefactors, and may express thanks
by immortalising their virtues.” The author goes on to review
and appreciate briefly Justinian’s achievements in augmenting
the size and prestige of the Empire, in imposing theological
unity on its inhabitants, in ordering and classifying its laws, in
strengthening its defences, and, noting particularly his indulgent
treatment of conspirators, praises his general beneficence. This
was a wonderful recantation of the unpublished libel, and we
may doubt whether it was entirely sincere. Procopius did not
take the Secret History out of its hiding-place and burn it, but
he abstained from writing the book on ecclesiastical historjr
which he had planned.

lYlierever he was educated, Procopius had been saturated

the rank of liliistrioiis, and there is
a possibiiity that he was the Proco-
pius who was Prefect of the City in
562 (Theophanes, a.m. 60o5). But
the name was a common one.

^ ILA. IS. 29.

2 J6. 13. 7.

^ There is some evidence (see
Suidas siib ri/oo/coTTios) that he attained

XXIV

429

PROCOEim

with Herodotus and Thucydides. His works are full of phrases
which come from their works, and his descriptions of military
operations sometimes appear to be modelled on passages in
Thucydides. This fact has in modern days suggested the
suspicion that some of his accounts of battles or sieges are the
literary exercise of an imitator bearing little relation to what
actually occurred.^ But when we find that in some cases,
which we can control, other sources bear out his accounts of
operations at which he was not present (for instance, of the
siege of Amida in the reign of Anastasius), we see that he did
not misconceive the duty of a historian to record facts, and "was
able through his familiarity with Thucydides and Herodotus to
choose phrases from their writings suitable to a particular case.
It is remarkable that he does not seem to have read the History
of Prisons, for, where he relates events of the fifth century, he
seems to have derived his information not directly from that
historian, but from intermediate writers who had used Priscus
and perhaps distorted his statements.^ He appears to have
knowi the Syriac tongue, and it has been suggested that this
knowledge recommended him to Belisarius when he selected
him as his assessor in his first Persian campaigns.®

For his own time he derived information as to events and
transactions, with which he was not in contact himself by virtue
of his office on the staff of Belisarius, from people who had
personal knowledge of them. It is probable that Peter, the
Master of Offices, and possible that John, the nephew of Vitalian,
were among his informants on Italian affairs.^ And he seems
to have lost no opportunity of making the acquaintance of
ambassadors who came from foreign courts to Constantinople,
and questioning them about the history of their countries.^

He wrote in the literary Greek which had developed in a

^ See tte tracts of Braun and
Briickner, mentioned in Bibliogr. ii.
2, B, and tile refutation of their
suggestions by Haury, Zur Beurt. 1
sqq . — The fatalistic remarks which
Procopius introduces from time to
time are Herodotean.

^ One of the intermediaries may
have been Eustathius of Eiiiphania,
who (see Evagrius, v. 24) wrote a
universal history, for the latter part
of which his sources were Zosimus
and Priscus, whom he abbreviated.

It ended with the year 503. He was
one of the principal sources of Evag-
rius. See further Haury’s preface to
his ed. of Procopius.

® Haury, Zur Beurt. p. 20. Haury
thinks that he made use of Zacliarias
of Mytilene, and peihaps of the
History of Armenia by Eaustiis of
Byzantium in a Syriac version, ib,
pp. 4 and 21.

A See above. Chap. § 2.

® See above. Chap. XIX. § 8.

430 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

direct line from the classical writers of antiquity, and had hardly
been affected by the ordinary spoken language, from which it
was far removed. His prose is straightforward and unadorned ;
his only affectation is that he liked to imitate Thucydides.
For it wmiild be unfair to describe as an affectation the avoidance
of current terms of his own day,^ especially when they were
of Latin origin, or the introduction of them with an explanation
\¥hich is almost an apology.^ For that was common form wdth
all authors who aimed at writing dignified prose. His ^' so-
called is simply equivalent to our inverted commas. But he
did not conform to the technical rules which governed the
prose of the more pretentious stylists of* his time. He did not
contort his sentences in order to avoid hiatus, and he ignored
the rule which had recently been coming into fashion as to the
fall of the accents in the last words of a clause. This rule was
that the last accented syllable in a clause must be preceded by
at least two unaccented syllables.^ Thus a sentence ending with
the words pdntdn antliropdn would he right, but one ending
with anthfdpdn pdntdn would be wrong. This rule is observed
by Zosimus, and w^as strictly adopted by the tw^o chief sophists
of the school of Gaza, Procopius and Choricius.^ Some writers
observed it in a modified form, allowang occasional exceptions.

The history of Procopius breaks off in a.I). 552, and Agathias
of Myrina takes up the story Agathias is a much less interesting
person. By profession he was a lawyer, and his ambition was
to be a poet. He was inferior to Procopius as a historian, and

^ For instance he regularly de- Gaza, for the contemporary sophist
scribes a bishop as Up^us, not eridKOTros. Aeneas of Gaza does not seem to have
- ^hoiSepctroi is one of the few words of adopted it. But it is an argument
this class that he employs sa7is phrase, against Haury’s attempt to associate
^ Attention was drawn to it by Iiim, on grounds of style, with the
W. Meyer {Der accentiurte 8atz- Gaza school of prose.
scJduss)^ but his conclusions have ® Born c. 536, he died in 582. He
been considerably modified by 0. probably intended to continue his
Litzica (Has MeyerscJie Satzschlms- history till 565. It was continued
geseiz), who pointed out that, in all by his admirer, Menander, who ^vas
Greek prose writers, the majority of trained as a lawyer, but spent his
sentences conform to the rule. This early life as a man about town,
is duo to tlie nature of the language. The fragments of Menander, 'whose
His conclusion is that unless the work terminated at 582, suggest that
exceptions do not exceed 10 or 11 he w^as a better historian than
per cent the writer was unconscious Agathias. It is to be noticed that
of the rule. Agathias made some use of Persian

^ The fact that the historian Pro- chronicles, from 'vvfiiich his friend
copiiis did not observe it ^ would not Sergius, the official interpreter, made
prove that he was not educated at translations for him,

XXIV

AGATHIAS

modern readers will judge Mm inferior as a writer, though ti
would not have been the opinion of his contemporaries, to who
taste his afiected style, with its abundance of metaphors and i
preciosity, strongly appealed. His clauses carefully observe
that accentual law which Procopius had wisely neglected.

Agathias occupies a place in the history of Greek poet:
both for his own compositions and for the anthology which ]
compiled of short poems by contemporary writers, incliidii
some of his own and some of his friend Paul the Silentiar}
This, like the earlier collections of Meleager and Philip, passe
perhaps almost entire, into the Anthology of Constantii
Cephalas which has been preserved,^ His talent was conside
able, and he was a master of metrical technique in the sty
which was then fashionable, and of which the best exanip
from the age of Justinian is the poem of Paul on the church
St. Sophia. This technique had been elaborated in the previo"
century by Nonnus of Panopolis.^

The Dionysiam of Nonnus is the most interesting Greek poe
that was written since the days of the great . Alexandrim
Theocritus, Callimachus, and Apollonius. Published perha
after the middle of the fifth century,^ it arrested the attentic

1 It was arranged in seven books were influenced by him, lived (Siiidi
according to subject. See his Prooe- sub nn.). Ludwich dates the Dion
mium {Anth. Gr. iv. 3). siaca about 390-405 on the grou

^ A7itholofjia Palaiina (so called of a passage in Eunapius, F
because the sole MS. is preserved Proaeresii, p. 92, who says that t
in the Palatine library of Heidelberg). Egyptians iirl TrotrjriKrj a(fi68pa pmIv^
Agathias also wrote a volume of rai. But why should this necessar:
epyliia, love stories from Greek allude to the poem of Nonnui
mjdhology,which he called When Eunapius was writing befc

3 The Egyptians, it was said (see 405, there ’were at least two disti
next note), ' are mad about poetry, guished contemporary Egyptian poe
And so in the fifth and sixth centuries Pailadas and Giaudian,' as well
we have a long procession of Synesius. In two places (xvi. 3i
Egyptian poets : Pailadas, Ciaudian, xx. 372) Nonnos has aWe ttcit
S ynesius, Cyrus, and Nonnus ; then ytte 8iBa^e, identical with the fi;
Cliristodorus of Coptus, Oolluthus, words of a short poem of lus fello
Tryphiodorus, Julian (writer of many townsman Cyrus, who rose to
epigrams in the Antk, Gr.) ; and Praetorian Prefect (sec above, \'oI.
finally we have the horrible scribblings p. 228). Ludwich holds that (,yi
with which Dioscorus of Aphrodito took them from Nonnus; Eric
plagued the life of a duke of the lander, and those who place Nonn
Thebaid {Pap. Cairo, ' i 67055, in the second half of tlie flith centiii
67097, etc, ; ii. 67177-G7188). hold that Nonnus was the borrower.

The date of Nonnus is disputed. Christodorus was a prolifle ])oet. J
W'e know that he was poterior to wrote an e})ie on the Isaurian n
Gregory of Nazianzus whom he echoes of Anastasias and mueh else, h
in Dionys. i. 310, and wrote before the only extant work is the
the reign of Anastasius, during which of the statues in the baths of Zeux.
Christodorus and OoUnthus, who pus, Anth^ Gr, Book ii. The Capit

432 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

of ail young men who were addicted to writing verse, and for
the next three or four generations poets imitated his manner,
and observed, some more and some less, the technical rules
which had made his heroic metre seem a new revelation. Of
these rules the most important were that a spondee is never
admitted in the fifth foot ; that of the first four feet two at
least must be dactyls, and when there are two spondees they
should not be successive ; ^ that hiatus is forbidden ; and that
elision is allowed only in the case of some particles and preposi-
tions. If we add to these restrictions the fact that the caesura
after the second syllable of the third foot predominates far
more than in earlier poets, it is evident that the hexameters
of Nonnus produce an entirely different poetical effect from
those of Homer or of Apollonius. But Nonnus introduced
another rule of a different kind which points to the direction
in w'hich Greek versification was to develop in later times. He
strictly excludes proparoxytone words from the ends of his verses.
This consideration of accent, which was a complete departure
from classical tradition, was due doubtless to the influence of
popular poetry ; and may be set side by side with the considera-
tion of accent which, as we saw, was affecting Greek prose.
The truth is, that in this age the Greeks had ceased to feel
instinctively the difference between long and short syllables,
and only those whose ear was educated by classical studies
could appreciate poems mitten in the old metres. All vowels
had the same value, and the new Christian hymnography, which
was at its best in the sixth and seventh centuries,^ took no
account of quantity, but was governed by the simple rules that
corresponding verses should have the same number of syllables
and should have the final accent on the same syllable.

of I lion by Tryphiodorus and the very occasional exceptions.

Rape of Helen by Coliutlms are ^ For the controversy on the date
preserved. They exhibit Nonnian of Romanns, whom the admii'ers of
influence, but do not strictly observe hymnography consider the greatest
his rules. Jolm of Gaza, who wrote of the Greek hymn writers, see
a description of a picture representing Krumbacher, 663 8qq. ; Studien

the cosmos in the winter-bath of zu Romanos, 1898; Umarbeitimgen
Gaza (opened about a.d. 536), is a bei Romanos, 1879; Romanos und
servile imitator of the master. — On Kyriahos, 1901; C. de Boor, Die
the technique of this school of poetry Lebenszeit des Dicliters R., in B.Z, ix.
see Ludwicb, Beitrdge zur KritiJs 633 sqq. ; P. van den Ven, Encore
des Nonnus, 1873 ; Friedliinder, in Romanos le ^nelode, ib. xii 153 sqq.
Hermes, xlvii. 43 sqq.*, Tiedke, ^6. The last two studies seem to establish
xlix. 214: sqq. and 1. 445 sgg. that he lived in the sixth century,

^ This is a rule to which he allows notin the eighth.

XXIV

NONNUS

433

By these metrical innovations the character of the epic
metre was changed and made a suitable instrument for a
Dionysiac theme. In order to achieve a whirling breatliless
speed Nonnus bound it in fetters which excluded the variety
of metrical effects that the unrestricted use of spondees had
enabled the Homeric hexameter to compass.^ His harmonious
dactyls, with the procession of long compound words which is
almost a necessary consequence of the predominance of this
foot,^ however pleasing and effective in a short poem, become,
in a long epic like the Dionysiaca which has forty-eight cantos,
monotonous and wearisome.

The poem begins with the rape of Europa. The fiery birth
of the hero is not reached till the eighth boob, and the proper
subject of the poem, the expedition of Dionysus to India, begins
only in the thirteenth. Such is the scale of the work. We are
carried along throughout the whole range of mythology in a
sort of corybantic dance, — a dance of words. The interest
■ for us lies in the unclassical, one is tempted to say romantic,
treatment of classical themes. Astraeus takes the horoscope
of Persephone for her mother.® We are taken aback by the
surprising modesty of Zeus when he is gazing at Semele bathing.^
As an example of the poet’s dexterity take the verses in which
he describes the invention of the alphabet by Cadmus.^

avrap 6 irdcry

'EA.AaSt koI Sd)pa ko/x/^cov

yXdcrcnjs dpyaya rev^ev 6 p,6 6 poa^ (rviz(j:>v€0<5
dpp,ovi7]S o'TOt)(7]Soi' is d{i>y a crv^vya
ypaiTTOv dcriyiqroio rvwov ropvdcraTO crtyris.

To the peoples of Hellas he gave guerdons of speech and of thought ;

Symbols he placed in array, of the soimds which they uttered ; and
wrought,

Mingling the yoked with the free, and setting the order of each,

The form of a speech that is soundless, a silence as vocal as speech.

The world of this poet’s imagination has not the clear-cut
lines of classical art. He produces his effects by reflexions,

^ Of every live lines of Homer, are not of his owm coinage. They
probably four would have been are to be found hero and there in
rejected by Nonniis. earlier poets, whom ho carefully

^ Thus the average number of searched,
words in his verses is small. It has a QB saa.
been calculated that it is 6 to 7*2 y ^
in Homer. The great majority of vii. «65-268.
the uncommon compounds in Nonnus ® iv. 259 sqq.

434 HISTORY OF. THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE chap.

correspondences, indirections, and lias a whole vocabulary of
words for this purpose.^ But he could have achieved distinction
in simple pastoral poetry, as some idyllic passages show ; for
instance the song with the refrain

/lovrris Kakhs oAwAe, kcMj Se fuv eKrave Kovpy],

And occasionally he strikes off a verse which stays in the memory,
like

oriQixepov iv X^on /xeATTC, ml avptov cftos 'OXvp.7rov.

That Nonnus was a pagan or quite indifferent to religion
when he wrote the Dionysiaca is always taken for granted, on
the ground that a believing Christian of that age would not have
revelled in such a theme. But he was converted, and he
composed a free paraphrase of the Gospel of St. John, which
he strangely thought suitable for his dactyls. That he should
have spent his extraordinary skill on such an experiment
illustrates the curious defect in literary taste common to most
of the poets of the age.

Of the poets of his school, aU of whom are vastly inferior to
the master, Paul, the poet of St. Sophia, was the most talented,
and there was something to be said for employing the new
hexameter in a description of the aerial creation of Justinian.
But the poet whose name, though never mentioned by con-
temporaries, is best known to posterity is Musaeus.^ His Hero
and Leander caught the fancy of modern poets, more for the
romance of the subject than for his treatment. The lamp of

^ Such as vodos, dvTirvwoSf ladrviros,
/jLijU7}X65, dvTLK^Xevdos, dXXo7r/)jcraXXo$.
One of his favourite words is (pei-
d6iJ.€vos in the sense of forbearing ^ dis-
creet, gentle ; and adjectives in -aXios
(like (ppLKdXeos, <nycLX4o^, virvaXios:), oi
which he has a great number, are
a feature of his poetry. Another
characteristic of his technique is the
repetition of words, e,g, (xxxv, 42)

eirel (rm p-akkov otcrTtov
/Acisol oto'Tevova'iP 6i<rTevrijpe<f ’Epwrwj^.

2 Of his date we have no direct
information, and the place of his
birth is unknoTO. Agathias in the
epigram Gr,. v. 263 seems to

be thinking of his poem. It has been
guessed that he may be the Musaeus

w^ho was a correspondent of Proco-
pius of Gaza 48). In any

case he probably lived about that
time. The contention of Eohde
{Der gr, Roman, 502) that he w^as
imitated by Achilles Tatius has been
disproved by the discovery that
Achilles cannot have composed his
romance long after a.b. .feo, as a
fragment of it, written in the fourth
century, was found in Egj’pt (Rap.
Oxyrli. X. 1250). — The text of Musaeus
is very corrupt. It is to be hoped
that in the last line but one he wrote

Ka6 S’ 'Hpw Te9i'7]Ke crvp hkkvp-Wp irapa/coiT-p

and not ical diep^, as his latest editor
amends. The double spondee is the
one good point in the verse.

XXIV JOHN MALA LAS 435

Hero gives it a certain charm, but it shows no more distinguished
poetical talent than the little epics of Tryphiodorus and Colluthus,
and the Nonnian metre is as little suitable to the subject.

To return from this digression, the historians like Procopius,
Agathias, and Menander, who kept up the unbroken line of
literary tradition and believed they wrote Attic Greek, could
not be read except by highly educated people. So far had the
spoken language drifted away from literary prose. For a larger
public there was need of a popular history, vuritten simply in
the vulgar tongue. For this purpose John Malalas ^ of Antioch
compiled, perhaps about a.d. 550, a chronicle of the history of
the world, coming down to the first year of Justinian. In a
new edition there was added, whether by the author or by
another hand, a continuation treating Justinian’s reign on a
much larger scale than the reigns of his predecessors. In the
earlier part of the work there is no sense of proportion, and there
are many blunders. It was written down to the level of the
masses, and was nicely calculated to give them what would
interest them. Pages and pages are occupied with descriptions
of the personal appearances of the heroes of the Trojan War.
It hit the popular taste, was largely used by subsequent writers,
was in a later age translated into Slavonic, and was the first
of a long series of popular Byzantine chronicles.

It is an unfortunate gap in our knowledge that we have no
information as to the activities of the book trade. It would be
interesting to know whether the booksellers of Constantinople
received regular announcements of the works produced at
Alexandria, Athens, and other places, and how many copies were
circulated of a book like the Dionysiaca of Nonnus, or the
Wars of Procopius, or the Ghronicle ol Malalas, during the lives
of their authors. We should then have some idea what these
works meant for their own times.

In literature, as in law, the age of Justinian witnessed the

^ Malalas is the Syriac for rhetor, of the Slavonic translation. There arc
and the author is called John Bhetor several difficult ])robiems connected
by Evagrius, who used the work in with Malalas which cannot be dis-
its first form. The text we possess cussed here. See, for a general
is an abridgment, and mutilated at account, Krumbaeher, G.B.L. 325
the end, but it can be supplemented and Bury, App. i. to Gibbon,

by many excerpts and fragments, vol. iv., where the special studies
by its use in later chronicles, espe^ on the subject are mentioned. Cp.
cially ^ Theophanes and the Paschal works of Patzig and Gleye cited below,
GAmwcfe, and there are also fragments Bibliography, li. 2, B.

436 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE ch. xxiv

culmination of tlie old Graeco-Eoman traditioiij and at tlie
same time the signs were quite clear that the world was turning
in a new direction. While his talented lawyers were shaping
the greatest creation of Eome, its jurisprudence, into a final
form, Latin was being definitely abandoned for Greek as the
language of the legislator and the jurist ; and from the same age
which produced the best Greek historian since the time of Scipio
Africanus conies the first of the popular chronicles which re-
flected the ignorance and superstition of the Middle Ages. It
must not, however, be supposed that the old Greek tradition
in literature disappeared. It was attenuated and modified in
many tasteless ways, but the literary language was always
learned as a second tongue, and never fell into disuse. The
educated laity never ceased to read the ancient classics, and
while in western Europe the writing of books was almost confined
to ecclesiastics, in Greek lands the best books were generally
written by laymen.

BIBLIOGEAPHY

The following lists include most of the works cited in the footnotes (though
not, as a rule, articles in journals), and also some which are not cited but have
been consulted.

Abbreviations used in Footnotes and Bibliography

A.S.S.

—Acta Sanctorum.

B.Z.

— Byzantinisciie Zeitschrift.

C.I.G. .

=Cor|)us Inscriptionum Grae-
carum.

C.LL.

= Corpus Inscriptionum Latina-
rum.

C.J.

= Codex Justinianua.

C. Til.

= Codex Theodosianus.

B. Chr. B.

= Dictionary of Christian Bio-
graphy.

E.H.R.

English Historical Review.

F.H.G.

s=sFragmenta Historicorum

Graecorum.

J.H.S, == Journal of Hellenic Studies.

J.R.S. “Journal of Homan Studies.

M.G.H. =!Monumenta Germaniae His-

torica.

P.G. =Migne, Patrologia Graeco-

Latina.

P.L. =Migne, Patrologia Latina.

—Pauly-Wissowa, Reaieiicyklo-
padie der klassisohen Altcr-
tumswissenschaft.

R. I.S. —Rerum Italicarum Scriptores.

S. B. =Sitzungsberichte.

Viz. Vrem.==VizantiiBki Vremennik.

1. SOUECES

1. Monumental Sources

Cohen-Feuebdent. Descriptions des monnaies f rappees sous I’Empire romain.
Ed. 2, vol. 8. 1880-92.

Corpus Inscri|)tioniini Graecarum. Ed. Boeckh. 4 vols. 1828-77.

Corpus Inscrijitionunx Latinarum. Ed. Mommsen and others. 1862- , in
progress.

Dessau. Inscriptiones Latinae Seiectae, 3 vols. 1892-1916.

Eckhel. . Doctrina jJ^ummorum Veterum. VoL viii 1798.

Gobi, A. F. Thesaurus veterum diptychorum consulariurn et ecclesiastieonnn.
3 vols. 1759.

Inscrix^tioncs Graecae (Berlin). 1873- , in progress.

Lepebvre. Recueii des inscriptions grecques-cliretiennes d’^gypte. 1907.
Rossi, De. InsciiptiGnes Christianae Urbis Romae. 2 vols. 1857-83.

Sabatier, J. Descrij>tion generale des monnaies byzantines. Vol. i 1802.

" 437 ''--'' ■

438 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Wroth, W. Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Goins in the British Museum.
2 Yols. 1908.

Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths, etc., in the British
Museum. 1911.

2, Literary Sources

A. Greek mid Latin

Acta Oonciiiorum. See Mansi.

Acta inartyrii Arethae. A.S.S. Oct. 24, x.

Acta Sanctorum Bollandiana. 1643-1894.

Aekeas of Gaza. See Epistolographi Graeci.

Aetheria. See Itinera Hierosol,

Agathias. Historiae. (1) Ed. Hiebuhr. 1828. (2) Ed. Dindorf, in Hist.

Grace. Min. ii. 1871.

Aghellus. Liber Pontificalis. (1) Ed. Holder-Egger, in M.G.H., Script, rer.
Lang. (2) Ed. Muratori, in B.LS. 1

Anastasius I. Edict for Libya Pentapolis. Ed. Zacharia von Lingenthal.

Monatsberichte d. k. pr, Ak. d. Wiss. p. 134 sqq, 1879.

Anonymus Byzantius. lUpl ffrpar'ijyLKTjs. In Grieeh. Kriegsschriftsteller,
edd. K-oehly and Rustow, ii. 2. 1855. (Includes the 'Epgr/i/eta, )

Anonymus Valesianus. Pars IL (1) Ed. Cessi, in new ed. of Muratori,
R.I.S., 1913. (2) Ed. Mommsen, in Chron. Minora, i.

Anthologia Graeca. (1) Ed. Diibner. 2 vols, 1864-72. (2) Ed. Stadtmiilier
(incomplete). 1896- .

Anthologia Latina. Edd. Bucheler and Riese. 2 parts. 1894-1906.
Antonius. Vita Symeonis Stylitae. Ed. Lietzmann. 1908. (Along with
German tr, of a Syriac life, and Symeon’s letters, by Hilgenfeld.)
Apollinaris SiDONius. Opera. Ed. Luetjohann. 1887.

Letters, transL by 0. M. Dalton. 2 vols. 1915.

Aristaenetus. See Epistolographi Graeci.

Asteeius. Homiliae. P.G. 40.

Augustine, S. Epistulae. Ed. Goidbacher. 4 parts. 1895-1911.
Confessiones. Ed. Knoll. 1896.

De civitate Dei. Ed. Hoffmann. 2 vols. 1899, 1900.

Avitus, Alouvius Ecdigius. Opera. Ed. Peiper. 1883.

Benedict, S. Begula. (1) Ed. Woiffiin, 1895. (2) Ed. Butler, 1911. (Eng.

tr. by Gasquet, 1908.)

Blemyomacliia. See Eudocia.

BoETinus. Philosophiae Consolatio. (1) Ed. Peii)er, 1871. (2) Edd. Stewart

and Rand, with Eng. tr. (along with the Theological Tractates). 1918,

Callinicus. Vita HypatiL Edd, Semin, Phil. Bonn, sodales. 1895.
Candidus. Eragmenta. E.H.G. iv.

Carmen de Providentia divina. Printed among Prospers works. P.L. 51.
Cassiodoeus Senator. Varia. Ed. Mommsen. 1894.

Chronicle. Chron. Minora, ii.

Cedrenus. Historiarum Compendium. Voi. i. Ed. Bekker, 1838.
Choricius. Orationes, declamationes, fragmenta. Ed. Boissonade. 1840.
Duae orationes nuptiales, Ed. Eorster. 1891.

Duae in Brumaiia lustiniaui et de Lydis Orationes. Ed. Eorster. 1891.
Mltiadis Oratio. Ed. Eorster. 1892.

In Aratium et Stephanum. Ed. Graux. In Qiluvres de 0. Graux, voi. ii.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

439

Chronica Caesaraugustana. Chron. Min. ii.

Chronica Gallica. Chron. Min. ii.

Chronica Minora, saec. iv., v., vi., vii. 3 vols. Ed. Mommsen. 1892-98.

Chronicon Paschale. 2 vols. Ed. Bindorf. 1832.

Claudian. Opera. (1) Ed. Birtj. 1892. (2) Ed. Koch. 1893.

Codex Jnstinianiis. See Corp. Jur. Civ.

Codex Theodosianus. (1) Ed. Gothofredus, 6 vols., 1736-43. (2) Ed. Haenel,

1837-44. (3) Edd. Mommsen and Meyer, 2 vols., 1905.

Collectio Aveliana. Epp. Imperatorum, Pontificnm, aliorum (a.d. 367-553).
2 parts. Ed. Gunther. 1895-98.

CoLLTiTHirs. Raptiis Helenae. See Tryphiodorus.

Constantine. Vita Germani. A.S.S., July 31, vii.

Constantine PoEPHYEoaENNETOS. Excerpta Historica. 4 vols. (1. Be
legationibus. 2. Be virtutibus et vitiis. 3. Be insidiis. 4. Be senten-
tiis.) Edd. Boissevain, Be Boor, Buttner-Wobst. 1903-6.

Be cerimoniis. Ed. Beldser. 1829.

Consularia Constantinopolitana. Chron. Min. i.

Consuiaria Italica. Chron. Min. i.

CoEiPPns. Carmina. Ed. Partsch. 1879.

Corpus Juris Antejustiniani. 6 fasc. Ed. Haenel. 1835-44.

Corpus Juris Civiiis. Institutiones, Bigesta. Ed. Kriiger. 1911. IP,
Codex Justinianus. Ed. Kruger. 1884. III. Novellae. Edd. Scholl
andKroli. 1912.

COSMAS (Indicopleustes). Christian Topography. (1) In P.G. 88. (2) Ed.

Winstedt, 1909. (Eng. tr. by MBrindle, 1897.)

Cyeil op Scythopolis. Vita Cyriaci. A.S.8., Sept. 29, 147 sqq.

Vita Euthymii magni. Ed. Cotelerius, in Monumenta eccl. Graecao,
vol. iv. 1692.

Vita Sabae. (1) Ed. Pomiaiovski (with the Slavonic version). 1890.
(2) Ed. Cotelerius, in op. eit. vol. iii. 1686.

Be Theodosio abbate. See Theodore of Petrae.

Bamascius. Vita Isidori. (1) Ed, Westermann (in the vol. of the Bidot
series containing Diogenes Laert.). 1878. (2) Ed. Asmus (with German
tr. and commentary). 1911.

hiiiyrjcrLS ire pi rrjs ayias 'Sonias. See Scriptores Orig. Const.

Beacontius. See Merobaudes.

Edictum Theoderici regis. (1) In Haenel, Coi'p. Jur. Antejust. (2) In Balm’s
Koiiige der Germanen, iv. 45 sgg'. The text of the Edictum Athalarici
= Cassiodonis, Var. ix. 18, is also printed here, 125 &qq,

Ennodius. Opera. Ed. Hartel. 1882.

Epistolographi Graeci. Ed. Kereher. (Includes the letters of Aeneas and
Procopius of Gaza, of Synesius ; and also x4ristaenetus.)

Ex3istulae Merowingici aevi. Ed, Gundlach. 1892.

(dictionary of tactical terms). See Anonymus Byz.

Eodocta (AuausTA). Carmina. Ed. Ludwich. 1897. (Along with Prochis,
Claiidian’s Greek poems, and the Blemyomachia. )

EuoiPPius. Vita Severini. Ed. Mommsen. 1877,

EiJN APHIS. , Vitae SopMstarum. 2 vols..- ■ , Ed. Boissonade. 1 822.

Historiae iragmenta. ' In -Constantine, Exc., hist., and E.H.G, iv.

Exist ATH ius OF Ep.iphania. Eragmenta. ■ ■ E.H.G. iv.' ^

Existeatius. Vita Eutychii patriarchae. " P.G. 86. '

Evaoeius. Historia Ecclesiastica. Edd. Bidez and Parmentier. 1898

Expositio totius mundi et gentium. Ed. Lumbroso. 1899.

440 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

PACTTiTBtrs OF Heumiane. Opera. P.L. 67.

Fasti CWsulares. Ed. Liebenam. 1909.

Fasti Vindobonenses. Cliron. MiE* i.

Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Vols. iv. and v. 1. Ed. Muller. 1851-70.

Georgius (Monachus). Cbronicle, Vol. i Ed. Be Boor. 1894,
Gregektius. Homeritarum leges, and Bisputatio cum Herbano. P.G. 86.
Gregory I. (Pope). Bialogi, Book ii. (Vita Benedieti). P.L. 66.

Gregory of Tours. Opera. Edd, Arndt and ICrusch. 1885.

Hesychius OF Miletus. Origines Constantinopolis. F.H.G. iv.

Hierocles. Synecdemus. Ed. Burckhardt. 1893.

Himerius. Eclogae ; Beclamationes. Ed. Wemsdorf. 1790.

Historia Miscella. Muratori, BJ.S. i.

Hydatius. Chronicle. Chron. Minora, ii.

Isidore of Seville. Historia Gothorum Wandalorum Sueborum ; and
Chronica. Chron. lylinora, ii.

Itinera Hierosolymitana, saec. iiii.-viii. Ed. Geyer. 1898.

Jerome, S. Epistulae. P.L. 22. > ^

Joi-iN of Antioch. Fragments. In Constantine, Exc. Hist., and F.H.G. iv., v.
John Chrysostom. Opera. 13 vols. Ed. Montfaucon. (Editio Parisina
altera.) 1834-39. Montfaucon’s text is also reprinted in P.G. 47-64.
John of Gaza. ’'E\'0pacrts rod KoafiLKOv Trip aKos rod 6 vtos ep r^ iVovrptf,

Ed. Friedlander. 1912. (Along with Paul Silentiarius.)

John the Lydian. Be magistratibus. Ed. Wiinsch. 1903.

Be mensibus. Ed. Wiinsch. 1898.

Be ostentis. Ed. Wachsmuth. 1863.

John Malalas. Chronicle. Ed. Bekker. 1831.

Additional fragments of Book xviii., in Constantine, Exc. Hist. iii.
Fragments, in Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, ii. (at end of volume). 1839.
John Philofonus. Be aeternitate mundi. Ed. Babe. 1899.

Be opificio mundi. Ed. Reichardt. 1897.

JORDANES. Opera. Ed. Mommsen. 1882.

Justinian (Emperor). Ecclesiastical Edicts and Writings. P.G, 86.

Laterculiis regum Wandalorum et Alanorum. Chron. Minora, iii.

Leges Visigothorum antiquiores. Ed. Zeumer. 1894.

Leo I. (Pope). Epistulae. ' P.L. 54.

Leontius of Byzantium. Opera. P.G. 86.

Lex Romana Wisigothorum. Ed. Haenel. 1847.

Libanius. Opera. Ed. Forster. (In progress.) 1903- .

Epistulae. Ed. Wolf. 1738.

Liber Biuriius. (1) Ed. E. de Roziere. 1869. (2) P.L. 105.

Liber Pontificalis. Vol. i Ed. Buchesne. 1886.

Liber de promissionibus. P.L. 51.

Liberatus. Breviarium. P.L. 68.

Malchus. Fragmenta. In Constantine, Exc. Hist, i., and F.H.G. iv,

Mansi. Sacrorum Gonciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Vols. iv.-ix.
Marcellinus. Chronicle. Chron. Minora, ii.

Marcus (diaconus). Vita Porphyrii Gaz. Edd. Soc. Phil. Bonn, sodales.
1895. (Eng. tr. by Hill, 1913.)

Marinus. Vita foocli. Ed. Boissonade. (La the vol. of the Bidot series
containing Biogenes Laert.) 1878.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

441

Maeius of Aventicum. Chronicle. Chron. Minora, ii.

Mabius Victob. Aletheia.^ See Poetae Christ. Min.

;Mat7rioe {Pseudo-). Strategikon. Ed. Scheffer. 1664.

MaxeisTIUS, Johannes. Opera. P.G. 86.

Menandeb. Fragmenta, E.H.G. iv., and Constantine, Exc. Hist. i.

Mebob AUDES. Reliquiae. Ed. Vollmer. 1906. (Along with Dracontius. )
Musaeus. Hero and Leander. Ed. Ludwich. 1912.

Narratio de Impp, doinus Valentinianae et Theodosianae. Chron. Min. i.
Hestoriana. Ed. Loofs. 1905.

Nicefkobus Uranus. Vita S. Simeonis iunioris. P.G. 86.

Hicetas of Bbmesiana. Opera. Ed. Burns, in Life and Works of N. 1905.
Nonnosus, Fragmenta. F.H,G. iv.

Nonnus. Bionysiaca. (1) Ed. Ludwich. 2 vols. 1909-11. (2) Ed. Kdclily.

2 vols. 1857-58.

Paraphrasis S. Evangeiii Joannei. Ed. Scheindler. 1881.

Notitia dignitatum. (1) Ed. Seeck, 1876. (2) Ed. Bocking, with commentary.

5 vols. and Index. 1839-53.

Hotitia Galiiarum. (1) Ed. Seeck, with Not. dig. (2) In Chron. Blinora, i.
Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africae. See Victor Vitensis.

Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae. Ed. Seeck, with Not. dig.

Olympiodobus. Fragmenta. F.H.G. iv.

Obientius. Carmina. Ed. Ellis. See Poet. Christ. Min.

Obosius. Historiae adv. Paganos, Ed. Zangemeister. 1889.

Palladius. Dialogus de Vita Chrysostomi. See John Chrysostom.

Historia Lausiaca. 2 vols. Ed. Butler. 1898-1904. (Eng. tr. by
Lowther Clarke, 1920.)

Papyri. B.G.U. Agyptische Urkunden aus den k. Museen zu Berlin,
Griechische Urkunden, iii., 1903 ; iv., 1912,

Pap. Brit. Mus. Greek Papyri in the British Museum, iii. Edd. Kenyon and
Bell. 1907.

Pap. Cairo. Catalogue generaie des antiquitiSs egyptiennes. Papyrus grecs
d’epoque byzantine. Ed. J. Maspero. i, 1911 ; ii, 1913.

Pap. Leiden. Papyri graeci musei ant. publ. Lugduni-Batavi, Ed. C.
Leemans. 1906.

Pap. Oxyrhyncus. The Oxyrhyncus Papyri. Edd. Grenfell and Hunt,
i, 1898; viii., 1911; x., 1914; xiv., 1920 ; xv., 1922.

Wessely. Griechische Papyrusurkunden kleineren Formats. 2 parts.
1904-8.

Passiones vitaeque sanctorum aevi Merovingici. Ed. Krasch. 1896.
riarpia 'KiovcrTavTLvovTrbXms, See Scr. Orig. Const,

Paulinus of Nola. Opera. (1) 2 vols. Ed. Hartel. 1894. (2) P.L. 61.

Paulxnus of Pella. Eucharisticos. Ed. Brandes. See Poet. Christ. Min.
Paulus Helladicus. Epistula. Ed, Lundstrom. Anecd. Byz. e. eudcL
Upsaliensibus. 1902.

Paulus (Silentiabius). roD vaov rijs aylas ISorpias. (1) Ed.

Friedlander. See John of Gaza. (2) Ed. Bekker. 1837. (3) P.G. 80.

Pelagius I. (Poioe). Epistulae. P.L. 69.

Peteb (patricius). Fragments of his lUpi 7ro\iTt/c7)s Karaardaems in Constan-
tine Porph., De cer., g.t?,

PiiiLOSTOBGius. Historia Ecclesiastica. Ed. Bidez. 1913.

Photius. Bibliotheca. Ed. Bekker. 1824, {Eng. tr. by Freese, voL i., 1920.)
Poetae Christiani Mnores. Including Paulinus of Petricordia, Odt'utius,
Paulinus of Pella, Marius Victor, and Proba. Edd. Petschenig and
others. 1888.

442 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

PoLEMius SiLViiTS. Laterculus (a.i>. 449). Chron. Min. i.

PossiDius. Vita Augustini. P.L. 32.

Pkiscian (graramaticus). Panegyric on Anastasins I. In Dexippi etc.

Historiae. Edd. Bekker and Niebuhr. 1829.

Peiscus. Eragmenta. In Constantine, Exc. Hist, i., and E.H.G. iv.

Proba. Cento. Ed. Schenkl. See Poet. Chr. Min.

Proglits. Carmina. See Eiidocia.

Procopius op Caesarea. Opera. (1) 3 vols. Ed. Haury. 1905-13. (2)

6 vols. (with Eng. tr.). Ed. Dewing. 1914- (in progress).

La Guerra Gotica, 3 vols, Ed. Comparetti (with Ital. tr.), 1895-98.

Anecdota. Ed. Oreili. 1827.

Procopius OP Gaza. Epistulae. See Epist. Graeci.

Panegyric on Anastasius I. (1) Along with Priscian, q.v. (2) Ed. Kempen.
1918.

Prosper. Opera. P.L. 51.

Chronicle. Chron. Minora, i.

Prubentius. Carmina. Ed. Dressel. 1860. (Eng. tr. by Morison, 1887-
1889.)

Eupikus. Historia Ecclesiastica. P.L, 21.

Eutilius Namatianus. De reditu suo. Ed. Miiller. 1870.

Salvian. Opera. 'Ed. Pauly. 1883.

Scriptores Originum Constantmopolitanarum. (1) 2 parts. Ed. Preger.

1901-7. (2) In Banduri, Imperium Orientale. Vol. i. 1711.
Sirmondianae, Constitutiones. At the end of Codex Theodosianus. Ed.
Mommsen, vol. i.

Socrates. Historia Ecclesiastica. (1) Ed. Valesius. Oxford reprint. 1844.
(2) P.G. 67.

SozoMEN. Historia Ecclesiastica. P.G. 67.

Sum AS. Lexicon. Edd. Gaisford, Bemhardy. 2 vols. 1853.

SuLPicius Severus. Ed. Halm. 1866.

Symmachus. Opera, Ed. Seeek. 1883.

Synesius. Opera. P.G. 66.

Epistulae, See Epist. Graeci.

Theodore (bishop of Petrae). Vita Theodosii abbatis. Ed. Usener. 1890
(With Cyril’s Memoir of Theodosius.)

Theodore Lector. Historia Ecclesiastica (fragments). P.G. 86.

Theodoret. Historia Ecclesiastica. Ed. Parmentier. 1911.

Opera. 5 vols. P. G. 80-84.

Theodosius op Meliteke. Chronographia. Ed. Tafel. 1859. .

Theophanes. Chronographia (with Latin version of Anastasius), 2 vols. Ed.
De Boor. 1883.

Tryphiodorus. 'AA.wa-ij 'IKIqv. (With Colluthus.) Ed. Weinberger. 1896.

Vegetius. Epitoma rei militaris. Ed. Lang, 1885.

Victor Tonhennensis. Chronicle, In Chron. Minora, ii.

Victor Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae imovinciae. Ed. Halm.
1879. (With an ecclesiastical Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africac
in reign of Hiineric.)

Vita Aniani. In Passiones vit aeque sanct. aevi Mer., q.v.

Vita Caesarii Arelatensis. P.L. 67.

Vita Daiiielis (Stylitae). Ed. Delehaye. Analecta Boil. 32. 1913.

Vita Fiilgentii. P.L. 65.

Vita Gregentii. Extracts. Ed. A. Vasil’ev. Viz. Vrem. xiv. 23 sgg'. 1907.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

443

Vita Marcelli (arcMmandritae). In Surius, Be probatis Sanctorum historiis,
vi., Dec. 29, p. 1020 sqq.

Vita Melaniae iunioris. Ed. Rampolia. 1905.

Vita Oiympiadis. Analecta Boll. xv. 1896.

Zo2;rARAS. Epitome historiarum. (1) Libri xiii.-xviii. Ed. Biittncr-Wobst.

1897. (2) Ed. Bindorf, vol. iii. 1870.

ZosiMUS. Historia nova. Ed. Mendelssohn. 1887.

B. Oriental

Agapius. Universal History. Arabic text with French tr. Ed. Vasil’ev,
1909.

Chronica Minora (Syriac). 3 parts with Latin tr. Edd. Guidi, Brooks, and
Chabot. 1903.

Chronicon Edesscniim. Ed. Guidi. Chron. Min., q.v.

Collection des historiens de FArmenie. Ed. Langlois. 2 vois. 186 7-69.

Elisha Vartaeed. History of Armenia. In Coll, des hist, de FArmenie,
vol. ii.

Jacobus Sarugensis. Epistle to the Himyarite Christians (Syriac). Ed,
Guidi (with Ital. tr.). Atti della r. Accad. dei Lincei, vii. 1881-82.

John of Beith-Aphthonia. Vita Seven (Syriac). Ed. Kiigener (with French
tr.). 1904.

John OF Ephesus. Ecclesiastical History (Syiiac).

Part 2 (fragments). Some published by Naii in Revue de F Orient
Chretien, ii. 455 sqq,, l^%l, and others in Comm, de B. or. ; see below.

Part 3. (1) English version by Pa3me Smith, 1860. (2) German

version by Schonf elder, 1862.

Commentarii de Beatis orientalibus. Latin tr. by Van Bouwen and Land.
1889.

John of Hikiu. Chronicle (Ethiopian). (1) Ed. Zotenberg (with French tr.),
1883. (2) English version by Charles. 1916.

Joshua Stylites. Chronicle (Syriac). Ed. Wright (with English tr.). 1882.

Lazarus of Pharbi. Coll, des hist, de FArmenie, vol. ii.

Michael Syrus. Chronicle (Syriac), vol. ii. Ed. Chabot (with French tr.).
1901.

Moses of Chorene. History of Armenia. (1) French tr. Coll, des hist, dc
FArmenie, vol. ii. (2) Russian tr. by Emin. 1893 (Moscow).

Nestorius. Le Livre d'Heraclide de Damas. Tr. Nan, 1910.

Fragments of a Sermon. (1) In Loofs, Nestoriana. 1005. (2) P.G. GO.

Tabari. Chronicle (Arabic). German tr. of a portien, by Niildeke (f.hsschichte
der Perser mid Araber zur Zeit der Sassanideii). 1870.

Zacharias of Mitylene. Chronicle (Syriac). (1) English tr, by Hamilton
and Brooks. 1899. (2) German tr. by Ahrens and Ivrfiger. 1890,

Zacharias Scholasticus. Vita Severi (Syriac). Ed. Kugener (with French
tr.). 1903.

444 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

II. MOBBBK WORKS
1. Generai^

A. Books of Reference {Dictionaries^ Encyclopaedias, etc,)
Bardenhewer, 0. Patrologie. Ed. 3. 1910.

Cabrol, F. Bictionnaire d’arclieologie chrefcienixe et de lxturgie. 1907- .
Clinton, H. Fynes. Fasti Romani 2 vols. 1845-50.

Baeembero and Saglio. Bictionnaire des antiquites grecques et romaines.
1877- .

Bictionary of Christian Antiquities. Edd. Smith and Cheetham. 2 vols.
1875-80.

Bictionary of Christian Biography. Edd. Smith and Wace. 4 vols. 1877-87.
Bictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. Ed. Smith. 2 vols. 1873.

Faerioius, J. a. Bibliotheca Graeca. Ed.^ Harles. 12 vols. and Index.
1790-1837.

Friedlander, L. Roman Life and Manners (Eng. tr.). 4 vols. 1909-13.

Haitok. Real-Encykiopadie fiir protestantische Theologie und ELirche. Ed. 3.
1896-1909.

Le Qxtien, M. Oriens Christianus. 3 vols. 1740.

IVIas-Latrie, Comte de. Tresor do chronologie, d’histoire et de geographie.
1889.

Pauly. Realencyklopadie der klassischen Altertiimswissenschaft. Ed.
Wissowa. 1894- (in iDrogress).

PoTTHAST, A. Bibliotheca liistorica medii aevi. Ed. 2. 2 vols. 1896.

Ruggiero, E. de. Bizionario epigraphico di antiohita romane. Vols. i.-
1895- .

SuiOERUS, J. C. Thesaurus ecclesiasticus e patribus Graecis. Ed. 2. 2 vols.

1728.

B. General Histories {Political and Ecclesiastical)

Bussell, F. W. Constitutional Hist, of the Roman Empire (from 81 a.d. to
1081 A.D.). 2 vols. 1910.

Cambridge Medieval History, Vols. i. and ii. Edd. Gwatkin and Whitney.
1911-13.

Bahn, F. Bie Konige der Germanen. 12 vols. 1861-1909.

Finlay, G. History of Greece. Vol. i. 1876.

Gibbon, E. Beeline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Vols. iii. and iv. Ed.
Bury. 1909.

Gieselee, C. L. Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Ed. 4. Vol. i. 1844.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

445

Harnaok, a. History of Dogma (Eng. tr.). Vol. iv. 1898.

Hbfble, C. J. Conciiiengeschichte. Ed. k Vol. ii. 1875.

MoDGiaN, T. Italy and lier Invaders. Vols. i.-iv. Ed. 2. 1892--90. Vol. v.

1895.

Kulakovski, j. Istoriia Vizantii. Vols. i. and ii. 1910-12.

Lebeau, Ch. Histoire dn Bas-Empire. Vols. v.-ix. Ed. Saint Martin. 1826-28.

Papabrtgopulos, K. 'laropl^i rod "W^'k'qvLKOv 'iSvovs. Vols. ii., iii, Ed. 2. 1886.

Ranke, L. von. Weltgescliiclite. Vol. iv. 1883.

Rawlinson, G. The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy. 1876.

Seeck, 0. Geschichte des Untergangs der antikcn Welt. Vols. i.-vi. 1895- .

Tillemont, L. S. be Le Nain be. Histoire des Empereurs. Vols. v., vi.
1732-39 (Venice).

Memoircs pour servir a i’histoire ccclesiastique des six premiers siecles.
Vols. x.-xvi. 1732 (Venice).

UsPENSKi, Th. j. Istoriia Vizantiiskoi. Vol. i. 1912.

Young, G. E. East and West through Fifteen Centuries. Vol. ii. 1916.

2. Special

A. On Political and Ecclesiastical History
Abonts, N. Armeniia v epoldiu lustiniana. 1908.

Asdourian, P. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Armenien und Rom
(190 B.C.-A.I). 428). 1911.

Audollent. Carthage romaine 146 b.c,--a.b. 698. 1901-4,

Babut, E. Ch. Le Concile de Turin. 1904.

Barth, W. Kaiser Zeno. 1894.

Baynes, N. Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century. E.H.R. xxv. Oct.
1910.

Besse, j. M. Les Moines d’ Orient anterieurs au concile de Chaicedoine (451).
1900.

Bethune-Bakee, j. Nestorius and his Teaching. 1908.

Binding, C. Das burgiindisch-romanische Konigreieh (443-532). Vol. i. 1868.
Blasel, C. Die Wanderziige der Langobarden, 1909.

Beockhoff, W. Studien zur GescMchte der Stadt Ephesos (4th to 15th cent.).
1905.

Brooks, E. W. The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians. E.H.R. viii. April
1893,

Cagnat, R. L’Armee romaine d’Afrique. 1913.

Chamich, M. History of Armenia. Eng, tr. by AvdalL Vol. i. 1827.

Delbeuck, H. Geschichte der Kriegskunst. Vol. ii. 1901.

» Diehl, Cii. L’Afrique byzantine, 1896.

Justinicn et la civilisation byzantine au vi® siecle. 190 L
Figures bj^zantines. P serie. 1906.

Theodora, im|>eratriee de Byzanee. N.D.

446 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Bill, S. Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Emjnre. 1898.
Duchesne, L. Eglises separees. 1896.

Histoire ancienne de F^giise. Vol. iii. 1910.

Vigile et Pelage. Revue des questions historiquos, vol. xxxvi. 1884.
Bumoultn, M, Le Gouvemement de Theodoric et la domination des Ostrogoths
eii Italic. Rev. Hist. 106. 1902.

Freeman, E. A. Western Europe in the Fifth Century. 1904.

Fustbl de Goulanges. Histoire des institutions politiqucs de Fancienne
France. 1875.

Gasquet, a. L’Empire byzantin et la monarchie franque. 1888.

Gefecken, J. Der Ausgang des griechisch— rdmisehen Heidcntums. 1920.
Gelzer, H. Kosmas der Indienfahrer. Jahrbb. f. protestantische Theologic.
ix. 105 sqq. 1883.

GiiNiER, Fb. R. Vie de Saint Euthyme le Grand. 1909.

Gregorovius, F. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages (tr. by A.
Hamilton). Vols. i. and ii. 1895,

Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mitteialter. Vol. i. 1889.

Athcnais. 1882.

Grisar, H. History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages (Eng. tr.).
Vols. i. -iii. 1911-12.

Gsell, S. Les Monuments antiques de FAlg6rie. 2 vols. 1901.
Guldenpenning, a. Geschichte des ostromischen Reiches unter den Kaisem
Arcadius und Theodosius II. 1885.

Guterbock, K. Byzanz und Persien in ihren diplomatisch-volkerrechtlichen
Beziehungen im Zeitalter Justinians. 1906.

Hartmann, L. M. Geschichte Italiens im Mitteialter. Vol. i. 1897.
Havbrfield, F. The Romanization of Roman Britain. Ed. 3. 1915.

Hebtzberg, G. F. Geschichte Griechenlands seit dein Absterben des antiken
Lebens. Part i. 1876.

Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaf t der Romer. Part iii. 1875.
Heyd, W. Geschichte des Levantehandels im Mitteialter. Vol. i. 1879.
Hirth, F. China and the Roman Orient. 1885.

Holm, A. Geschichte Siciliens im Altertum. Voi. iii. 1898.

Holmes, T. S. The Christian Church in Gaul. 1911.

Holm:es, W. G. The Age of Justinian and Theodora. 2 vols. 1905-7.
Howorth, H. H. The Avars. Journal Asiatic Soc. III. ser. Voi. i. 1889.
Hdart, 0. Histoire des Arabes, Voi. i. 1912.

Hutton, W. H. The Church of the Sixth Century. 1897.

JoRS, P. Die Reichspoiitik Kaiser Justinians. 1893.

Juno, J. Romer und Romanen in den Bonaulandern. 1887.

JuNGHANS, W. Histoire critique des regnes de Cliilderieh et de Ghlodoweeli
(Fr. tr. by Monod). 1879.

Kalligas, P. MeXerai ical \byoi. 1882.

Keller, R. Stilicho. 1884.

Khvostov, M. Ist:)riia vostochnoi torgovli greko-rimskago Egipta. 1907.
Korbs, 0. Untersiicliimgen zur ostgotischen Geschichte. I. 1913 .
Kulakovski, j. Proshloe Tavridy. Ed. 2. 1914.

Kurth, G. Histoire poetique des Merovingiens. 1893.

Labourt, j. Le Christianisme dans Fempire perse sous la dvnastie sassanide.
1904 . ■ ' “ '

BIBLIOGRAPHY 447

Leuthold, H. Untersuch ungen zur ostgotischen Geschichte dor Jahre 535-537.
1908.

Loewe, R. Die Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meere, 1896.

Loofs, F. Leontius von Byzanz. 1887.

Nestorius and iiis Place in the History of Christian Doctrine. 1914.
Lcitfadeii zum Studiiini dor Doginengeschichte. Ed. 4. 1906.

Lot, E. Les Migrations saxonnes en Gaule et on grando Bretagne. Revue
historique, 119. May 1915.

Maein, AbbiS. Les Moines de Constantinople (330-898). 1897.

Maequart, J. Die Chronologie der alttiirkischen Inschriften. 1898.
Mai^teoye, E. L’Occident a Pepoque byzantine. Goths et Vandaies. 1904.
Genseric. 1907,

Merten, E. De bollo Persico ab Anastasio gesto. Comm. pliiloL Jenensos
vii. fasc. poster. 1906.

Milne, J. G. History of Egypt under Roman Rule. 1898.

Nau, E. Nestorius d’ai>res les sources orientales. 1911.

Neimati, K. Die historisch-geographischen Beweisc der Hiungnu=Him
Identitat. 1910.

Oman, C. W. C. History of the Art of War. 1898.

Pace, B. I Barbari e Bizantini in vSicilia. 1911.

Paegoire, j. L’^iise byzantine de 527 a 847. Ed. 2. 1905.

Petrie, W. M. E. Migrations, Journ. of Aiithr. Inst, xxxvi. 1906.
Pfeilschifter, G. Der Ostgotenkonig Theoderich der G]‘osse und die katho-
lische Kirche. (Kirchengeschiehtliche Stuclien, edd. luiopfler, Schrors,
Sdraiek, vol. iii.) 1896.

PuECH, A. St. Jean Chrysostome et les mceurs de son temps. 1891.

RemIdnyi, a. Zur Geschichte der Donauflotilla. 1888.

Rose, A, Kaiser Anastasius 1. 1882.

Rn GAMER, P. W. Leontius von Byzanz. 1894.

Safabik, P. j. Slawische Alterthlimer (tr. by Wuttke). 2 vols. 1843-44.
Sagot, E. La Bretagne romaine. 1911,

ScALA, R. VON. Die wichtigsten Beziehungen des Orientes zum Occidente
in Mittelaiter und Keuzeit. 1887.

SoiiMLDT, L. Geschichte der deutschen Stamme. Vol. i.~ (in progress).
1904- '

Geschichte der Wandalcn. 1901.

ScHULTZE, V. Konstantinopei. 1913.

Geschichte des Untergangs des griechiscli-roinischen Heidenthums. 2
vols. '1887-92.

SiEVERS, G. R. Studien zur Geschichte der romischen Kaiser. 1870.
SuNDWALL, J. Westromische Studien. 1915.

Abhandiungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Romertums* 1919.

Tomaschek, W. Die Goten in Taurien. 1881.

Toeenebize, E. Histoire jiolitique et reiigieusc de rArincnic, 1901.

Tobtain, j. Les Cites romaines do la Tunisie. 1896.

Vasil’ev, a. a. Lektsii po istorii Vizantii. Vol. i, 1917.

Vogt, E. Die politischon Bestrebungen StiUchos. 1870,

448 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Westbeeg, F. Zur Wandening der Laixgobarden. {In Zapiski imp, Ak.
Ncank, YL No. 5.) 1904

Zeiller, J. Les Origines chretiennes dans les provinces dannbiennes de
Feinpire romain. 1918.

B. Criticism of Sources

Angus, S. Sources of the first Ten Books of Augustine’s De Civitate Dei. 1906.
Asmus, J. B. Zur Bekonstruktion von Damascius’ Leben Isidorus. B.Z. xviii.,
xix. 1909-10.

Auler, a. De fide Procopii Caes. in secundo bello Persico lustiniani I. imp.
enarrando. 1876.

Battffol, P. Quaestiones Phiiostorgianae. 1891.

Bauer, M. Asterios, Bischof von Amaseia. 1911.

Baumstark, B. Das Alter der Peregrinatio Aetheriae. Oriens Cliristianus,
N.S. i. 1911.

Baur, Chr, vSt. Jean Chiysostome et ses oeuvres. 1907.

Bidez, j. La Tradition manuscrite de Sozomene. 1908.

Boor, C. be. Suidas und die Konstantinsche JBJxzerptsammlung. B.Z. 21, 23.
1912-14

Braun, H, Procopius Caesariensis quatenus imitatus sit Thucydidem. 1886.

Die Nachahmung Herodots durch Prokop. 1894
Bruckner, M. Zur Beurteilung des QescMchtsschreibers Prokopius von
Caesarea. 1896.

Bury, J. B. The Notitia Dignitatum. J.E.S. x. 1922.

CiPOLLA, C. Bicerche intorno all’ “ Anonimus Valesianus II.” (Bull, del-
r Istituto Italiano, No. ii.) 1892.

Crees, J. H. E. Claiidian as an Historical Authority. 1908.

Dahn, F. Procopius von Casarea. 1865.

Paulus Diaconus. I. Abth. 1876.

FdRSTER, J. W. Quaestiones Vegetianae. 1895.

Franke, G. Quaestiones Agathianae. 1914.

Geppert, F. Die Q.uellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrp,tes Scholasticus. 1898.
Gleye, C. E. Beitrage zur Johannesfrage. B.Z. v. 422 sqq. 1896.

Gunther, K. Theodoret von Cyrus. 1913.

Haury, J. Procopiana [i.]. 1891.

Procopiana, ii. 1893.

Zur Beurteilung des Geschichtsschreibers Proco|)ius von Caesarea. 1897.
Heinemann, M. Quaestiones Zonareae, I. 1895.

Heussi, Iv. Untersuchungen zu Nilus dem Asketen. 1917.

Jacobi, B. Die Quelle der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diaconus. 1877.
Jeep, L. Quellenuntersuchungen zu den griechischen Kircheiihistorikern.
1884

Lunbstrom, V. Prolegomena in Eunapii Vitas. 1897.

Miller, E. Theodore le lecteur et Jean d’lSgee. Bevue arch., 26, 273 sqq. and
396 :ViS73. ' ■

BIBLIOGRAPHY

449

Panchenko, B. 0 tainoi istorii Prokopiia. 1897.

Patzig, E. Uncrkaiint mid niibekaniit-gebliebene Malalas-Praginente. , 189].
Johannes Antiocbemis und Jobannes Malaias. 1892.

Saerazin, V. Be Tlieodoro Lectore. In Comm. Phil. Jenonses. 1881.
Saherbeei, P. Be foiitibus Zonarae quaestiones seiectac. In Comm. Phil.
Jencnses. 1881.

ScHOO, G. Bie Quoilen des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomeiios. 1911.

Seeck, 0. Bie Briefe des Libanius, zeitlicli geordnet. 1906.

Shestakov, S. P. Kandid Isavriiskii. In Lietopis’ ist.-pliil. obshclicstva, of
Odessa. IV. (Viz. otd. ii.). 1894.

0 znachenii Slavianskago perevoda khroniki Ioanna Malaly. Viz. Vrem.
i., ii. 1894,1895.

Sotibiadis, G. Zur Kritik von Johannes von Antioohia. 1887.

C. Laws, Instit‘Utio7is, Administration, etc.

Agoaeias, 0. Precis de droit romain. 2 vols, 1886-91.

Alivisatos, H. S. Bie kirchliche Gesetzgebmig des Kaisers Justinian I. 1913.

AnheEADES, a. M. Aarropla rifs ’'EXXTjvudp oi^jLioalas OiKOPOiiia^. I. 1918.

IIe/3t rod TrXrjOvcT/jLov icai rot) TrXoi'Tou rrjs liojparauTLPOvTroXeuis. 1918.
Beproduced in French with additions and improvements in Aletron.
Vol. i. No. 2, 1920.

Ilepi p’Ojuia'/^aTos Kal t7]s KTTjriKTjs dvpdixeoj^ rtvp TroXvrifJMv /MeTciXXcop Hard
Totis Bv^avTLP oils Xpovous. 1918.

Le Montant du Budget de lempire bjj^zantin. Revue des etudes grecques,
xxxiv. No. 156. 1921.

Aussaeesses, F. L’Armee byzantine a la fin du vi® sieeie. 1909.

Babut, Ch. La Garde imperialeet le corps d’officiers de Farmee romaine aux
iv*-' et V® siecles. Revue historique 114, 116. 1914-16.

Benjamin, C. Be lustiniani imp. aetate quaestiones militares. 1892.

Billetee, G. Geschichte des Zinsfusses . . . bis auf Justinian. 1898.

Boak, a. E. R, The Master of Offices in the Later Roman and Byzantine
Empires. 1919.

Boeghesi, B. Les Prefets du pretoire. Ed. Guq. 2 parts ( ~vol. x. of Qiliivres
completes). 1897.

Beunnee, H. Beutsehe Rechtsgeschichte. Vol. i. Ed. 2. 1906.

Buey, J. B. The Constitution of the Later Roman Empire. 1910.

Caeette, E. Les Assembiees provinciales de la Gaule romaine. 1895.

CoLLiNET, P. Etudes historiques sur le droit de Justinieii. Vol. i. 1912.

Biehe, Ch. Etudes sur Fadministration byzantine dans Fcxarchat de Ravcnne.
1SS8.

Ellissen, O. a. Ber Senat im ostromischen Reiche. 1881.

Gebhaedt, E. Bas Verpflegungswesen von Rom und ConstanLmoj'sel in der
spateren Kaiserzeit. 1881.

Gelzee, M. Studien zur byzantinischen Verwaltuiig Agyptens. 1909.

Grosse, R. Romische Alilitargeschichte von GaUienus bis ztim Begiim der
byzantinischen Themenverfassung. 1920.

Bas romisch-byzantinische Marschlager vom 4.-10. Jahrluuidert, B.Z.
xxii 1912..; .'F'"'

Bie Rangordnung der romischen Armee des 4.-6. Jahrhuiiderts. Kilo,
XV. 1915.

VOL. II

450 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Habtmann, L. M. Untersuchuagen zur Geschiclite der byzantinischcn Ver-
waltung in Italien (540-750), 1889.

His, -R. Die Doniaiien der romischen Kaiserzeit. 1896.

Hudemann, E. E. Gescliichte des romischen Postwesens wahrend der
Kaiserzeit. 1878.

Karlowa. Romische Rechtsgeschichte. Vol. i. 1885.

Koch, F. Die byzantinisehen Beamtentitel von 400 bis 700. 1903.

Mceivaix, Ch. Le Senat romain depuis Diocletien a Rome et a Constantinople.
1888.

Leo, P, Die capitatio plebeia und die capitatio bumana. 1900.

Maequardt, J. Romische Staatsverwaltung. 3 vols. 1887.

MASP^mo, J. Organisation militaire de FEgypte byzantine. 1912.

<boi56/3aTOi et Srpartwrai dans Farmee byzantiiie an vF sieele. B.Z. 21.
1912.

Mitteis, L. Reiclisreclit und Volksrecht in den dstlichen Proviiizen des
romischen Kaiserreichs. 1891.

Mommsek, Tn. Romisches Staatsrecht. 3 vols. 1887.

Romisches Strafrecht. 1899.

Monkier, H. l^tudes de droit byzantin. Nouvelle Revue historkpie do droit,
V xvL'

Muller, A. Das Heer Justinians. Phiiologus, Ixxi. 1912.

Pioaniol, a. L’Impot de capitation sous le Bas-empire romain. 1916.

Reid, J. S. The Municipalities of the Roman Empire. 1913.

Roby, H. J. Introduction to Justinian’s Digest. 1884.

Rostowzew, M. Studien zur Geschichte des romischen Kolonates. 1910.

Seegk, Die Schatzungsordnung Diocietians. Zeitschrift fiir Social- und
Wirtschaftsgeschichte, iv, 1896.

Steik, E. Studien zur Geschiclite des byzantinisehen Reiches. 1919.

Ein Kapitel vom persischen und vom byzantinisehen Staate. Byz.-
neugriechischc Jahrbucher, i. 1920.

Stockle, A. Spilt romische und byzantinische Ziinfte. 1911.

Waltzing, J. P. fitude historique sur les corporations profcssionnellcs choz
les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’a la chute de I’Empire d’occident.
4 vols. 1895-1900.

Zacharia von Lingenthal, K. E. Gescliichte des gricchisch-romischen
Rcchts. Ed. 3. 1892.

D. Chronology

Andreev, J. KonstantinopoFsIde Patriarkhi ot vremeni Khalkidonskago
sobora do Pliotiia. 1895.

Dulaitrier, E. Recherches sur la ehronologie armenienne, i. 1859.

Gelzer, H. Sextus lulius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronograph ie.
2 parts. 1880-98.

Muealt, E. de. Essai de chronographie byzantine, 395 a 1057. 1855.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

451

E. Geography, Topography, Maps

Anderson, J. G. C. Asia Minor (in Murray’s series of Handy Classical Mai)s),
1903.

The Road-System of Eastern Asia Minor. J.H.S. xvii. 1897.

Banditri, A. Imperium orientale. VoL ii, 1711.

Bieliaev, D. Th. Bj^zantina (in Russian). Books i., ii. 1891-93. Book iii.,
in Zapiski klass. otd. iinj). russkago arkheol. obshchestva, iv. 1907.
Kliram Bogoroditsy Khalkopratiiskoi v Konstantinoj)olie. In Lietopis’
ist.-phil. Obshchestva, Viz. otdicl 1, of Odessa. 1892.

Ohapot, V. La Prontiere de i’Euphrate, de Pompee a la conquete arabe. 1007.
Cluverius, P. Italia Antiqua. 2 vols. 1624.

CoLUCci, G. Antichita picene. VoL vii. 1790.

Dethier, P. a. Her Bosphor und Constantinoixd. Ed. 2. 1870.

Dubois DE Montpereux, P. Voyage autour du Oaucase. 6 vols. 1839-43.
Ducange, C. du Presne. Constantinopolis Christiana. 1729 (Venice).

Ebersolt, J. Le Grand Palais de Constantinople. 1910.

Evans, A. J. Antiquarian Researches in lily ric urn. 4 parts. Arciiaoologia,
xlviii,, xlix. 1883-85.

P'oRCHHEiMER, P., and Strzygowski, j. Die byzantinischen Wasserbehalter
von Constantinopel. 1893.

Grosvenor, E. a. Constantinople. 2 vols. 1895.

Gyllius, P, De Constantinopolcos topographia iibri iv. 1632.

De Bosporo Thracio libri iii. 1632.

Jire5bk; C. Die Heerstrasse von Belgrad nach Constantinopel und die
Balkanpasse. 1877.

Jordan, H. Topographic der Stadt Rom im Alterthum. 2 vols. (vol. i. part 3,
by Hulsen). 1871-1907.

Kiepert, H. Pormae urbis Romae antiquae. 1912.

Pormae orbis antiqiii. 1894- .

Labarte, j. Le Palais imperial de Constantinople et ses abords. 1861.
Leclercq, G. Art. Byzance, in Cabroi, Diet. See above, II. 1, A.

Miller, K. Itincraria Romana. 1916.

Millingen, a. VxiN. Byzantine Constantinople. 1899.

Mordtmann, Dr. Esquisse topographique de Constantinople (and plan).
1892.

Nissen, H. Italische Landeskunde. 2 vols. 1883-1902.

Oberhummer, E. Constantinopolis. 1899.

Pargoire, j. Hieria. Izv. russk. arkh. Inst, v Kj)lie, iv. 1899. Los SS.
Mamas de Cple. lb. ix, 1904.

Rufinianes. B.Z. viii. 1899. A propos de Boradion. Jb. xil 1903.
Paspates, a. G. Td BL/^arn^d 'ApAkropa, 1S85. Eng. tr. by Metcalfe, 1893,

452 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

E AMS AY, W. M. Historical Geography of Asia Minor. 1890.

Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. 2 vols. 1895-97.

Sachatj, E. Bdse in Syrien tind Mesopotamien. 1883.

Tapel, L. F. Be Thessalonica einsque agro. 1839.

Be via niilitari Eonianorum Egnatia. 1842.

Taerali, 0. Topographie de Thessalonique. 1913.

Tissot, Oh. J. Geographie comparee de la province roniaine d’Afrique. 2 vols.
and atlas. 1884-88.

"F, Art

Aifalov, B. V. Ellinistichesldia osnovy vizantiiskago iskusstva. 1900.
AntoisIADES, G. M. t7)s ayias So^ks. 3 vols. 1907-9.

Beetaxjx, L’Art dans i’ltalie meridionale. Vol. i. 1904.

Baltoist, 0. M. Byzantine Art and Archaeology. 1911.

Belbruck, E. Portrats byzantinischer Kaiserinnen. Mitth. d. k. d. arch.

Inst., Rom. Abt. xxviii. 1913.

Biehl, Oh. Manuel d’art byzantin, 1910.

Feesheield, E. H. Cellae Trichora.e. 2 vols. 1913-18.

Geoegb, W. S. The Church of Saint Eirene at Constantinople. 1913.

H:6braed, E., and Zeillee, J. Spalato, le palais de Biocletien. 1912.
Hbisenbeeg, a. Grabeskirche [ J erusalem] und Apostelldrohe f Konstantinopell
2 vols. 1908.

Jacksoh, T. G. Byzantine and Eomanesque Architecture. 2 vols. 1913.

Kondakov, N. Histoire de Tart byzantin. 2 vols. 1886-91.

Vizantiiskiia tserkvi i pamiatniki. 1886.

Keaus, F. X. Geschichte der christlichen Kunst. 2 vols. in 5 parts. 1895-
1908.

Lethaby, W., and Swainsof, H. Sancta Sophia. 1894.

Meyee, W. Zwei antike Elfenbeintafel der k. Staats-Bibliothek in Mimchen.

Abh. der k. Bayerischen Akad. der Wiss., xv. 1881.

Millingen, a. van. Byzantine Churches in Constantinople. 1912.

Paspates, A. G. MeX^rat. 1877.

Eichtee, j. P., and Tayloe, A. 0. Golden Age of Classic Christian Art. 1904.
Eivoiea, G. T. Lombardic Architecture. {Eng. tr. by Euslifortli.) 2 vols.

:;:;d9io.,:-,

Salzenbeeg. Aitchristliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel. 1854.
Stezygowski, J. Orient Oder Rom. 1901.

Texiee, C., and Ptjllan, R. Byzantine Architecture. 1864.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

453

WiLPERT, J. Die romischen Mosa’iken und Malereien der kirchliclien Banten
vom iv. bis xiii. Jabrliunderfe (xnit 300 farbigen Tafeln nnd 542 Text*
bildern). 4 vols. 1916.

Welee, 0. Altcliristiiche und byzantinisclue Kunsfc. I. Die altchr. Kunst.
1918.

G. Literature

Baumgarten, F. De Cbristodoro poeta Tliebano. 1881.

CiiRiST, W. Geschichte der griecMscben Litteratur. Ed. 2. 1890.

Ebert, A. Allgemeiae GescMcbte der Litteratur des Mittelalters im Abend-
iande. Vol. i. 1889.

Krembacher, K. Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur. Ed. 2. 1897

Litziga, C. Das Meyersche Satzschlussgesetz. 1898.

M^^rities, M. Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie. 1891.

Geschichte der lateiiiischen Literatur des Mittelalters. Part i. 1911.
Meyer, W. Der accentuirte Satzschluss in der griechischen Prosa voni
iv. bis xvi. Jahrh. 1891.

Peter, H. Die geschichtliche Litteratur iiber die romische Kaiserzeit bis
Theodosius 1. und ihre Quellen. 2 vols. 1897.

Rohde, E. Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlaufer. Ed. 2. 1900.

Sandy'S, J, E. History of Classical Scholarship. Vol. i. 1903.

Seitz, K. Die Schule von Gaza. 1892.

Teeeeel, W. S. Geschichte der romischen Litteratur. Ed. 4. 1882,

Whittaker, T. The Neoplatonists. Ed. 2. 1918.

Wilamowitz-Mollendoref, U. von. Die Hymnen des Proldos und Synesios.
(S.B. pr. Ah. d. Wiss.) 1907.

INDEX

English (and Latin)

Abandanes, ii. 105
Abaritana, 255

Abasgians, 43; ii. 114 sqq., 313
AbdcJi, ii. 5

Abgar of Edessa, ii. 12, 109
Ablabius, ii. 223
Aborras, r., 93, 94
Abram, viceroy of Yemen, ii, 326
Abram, father of Nonnosiis, ii, 326
Abiindanthis, 117, 118
Abydos, ii. 355

AbyssimanB, trade of, ii. 318, 321 ;
Christian missionaries in, 322 ;
relations to Himyarites, d22 sqq. ;
embassies of Justinian to, 325,
326

Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
quarrel with Basiliscus, 391, 403 ;
excommunicated by Rome, 404 ;
name erased from diptychs, ii. 373
Acacius, governor of Eoiirth Armenia,
ii. 92, 345

Acacius, bear-keeper, ii. 27
Acatiri, 284, 285

Accentual rules, in prose, ii. 430 ; in
verse, 432

Acheron tia, ii. 244, 246, 260, 271
Achilles Tatius, date of, ii. 434
Acqualagna, ii. 196, 263, 289
Acris, 449
Actresses, ii. 28, 29
Adaeratio, 49, 53, cp. 253
Adamantius, 417, 418 sqq.

Ad Aquas, ii. 132
Addac, 203
Addaeus, ii. 356

Ad Dccirnum, battle of, ii. 132 sqq.
Addua, r., battle of, 424
Adige, r., ii. 262
Adiutor, 32

Adlectio, to the Senate, 19
Ad Nlatricem, 2ti9
Adolius, ii. 107

Ad Padnm, ii, 263
AdscnpUtiiy 48
Adulis, ii. 322, 325
Adultery, ii. 410 sq.

Aedesius, reports on murder of Hy-
patia, 219

x4edesius, philosopher, 375

Aegidius, 331, 333, 346

Aemiiia, province, ii. 200, 201 ;

devastated, 203
Aeneas of Gaza, ii 430
AeriA:ow, tax, ii. 350
Aesculapius, cult of, 373
Aesis, ii. 289
Aetheria, abbess, ii, 318
Aetherius, ii. 69, 353
Aetius, hostage with the Goths, 180 ;
appeal of Britain to, 201 : supports
John the tyrant, 223 ; makes
terms with Placidia, 224 ; family,
and. character, 241 ; defends Gaul,
242 sq. ; 'mag. cquit.f 242; amg.
utr. mil.^ deposed, 248 ; first
consulship, ib. ; vanquishes Boni-
face, i6. ; 7m{/. uir. mil. again, Ih. ;
Patrician, ib. ; activity in Gaul,
249 sq. ; second consulship, 250 ;
dislike of Placidia for, 243, 250 ;
celebrated l)y Mfu-obaudes, 251 ;
third consulship, 256 ; repels Huns
in Gaul, 292 sqq. ; 295 ; murdered,
299 ; importance of his death, 300
Africa, threatened by Alarie, 184 ; by
Wallia, 202 ; Vandal cojiqm^st of,
244 sqq., 254 sqq. ; first division
between Em] ure and Vandals, 249 ;
second division, 255 ; Justinian's
reorganisation of the provineos, ii.
1^9 sq. ; fortilication s^'steTU, 148
sqq. ; Roman trade with card, ern
Africa, 318

Africa, proconsul of, 27
Agapetus, Pope, ii. 168, 172, 377

456 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Agatliias, chronological difficulties in, ;
ii. 117 ; on the Franks, 275 ; i
allusion to Spain, 287 sq. ; style, |
and poetry, 430 sq,

Agentes in rebus y 30 sq. \

Agila, king, ii. 286 I

AgintheUvS, rnag. 7ml. y 279
AgnatiOy ii. 404 sq.

Agrigentum, 327
Agrippa, Pr. Pr. of Gaul, 20S
Aidoing, 417
Aigan, ii. 83 sq.

Aiia, ii. 318
Aizan, ii.,322
AlcepJialoiy 403
AkomMoi (monks), 385, 437
AlaCy 35

Aiamanni, 99 ; aggressions of, 187 ;
aid Constantine III., 193 ; defeated
by Franks and settled in I^annonia,
461 ; invade Italy, ii. 275 sqq. ;
nature worship, 278
Alans, in Pannonia, 100 ; Huns sub-
jugate, 101; invade Gaul, 187 ;
invade Spain, 192 ; in Lusitania,
203 ; conquered by Visigoths, 204 ;
join the Vandals, ib. ; settlement
at Valence, 292 ; in Attila’s army,
293 ; repelled by Ricimer, 332 ; in
the Caucasus, ii. 313, 315
Alaric I., chosen king of Visigoths,
109; ravages Thrace, 110 ; in-
vades Greece, 111 5g., 119 sq.; mag.
7nil., 120 ; invades Italy, 160 sqq. ;
family of, 162, 185; threatens
Italy, 169 sq. ; in Noricum, 170 ;
second invasion of Italy, 174 sqq. ;
first siege of Rome, 175 sqq. ;
negotiations with Honorius, 178
sqq. ; second siege of Rome, 180 ;
sets up Attalus, 180 ; threatens
Ravenna, 181 ; interview with
Honorius, 183 ; third siege and
capture of Rome, 183 sq. ; death,
184 ; date of birth, 205
Alaric II., 340, 461, 462
Alatbar, 7nag. mil. in Thrace, 449
Albanum, ii. 191

Albinus junior, Faustus, ii. 153 sq^,
Alexander, agent of Justinian, ii.
162 sq.

Alexander, founder of monastery of
Akoimetoi, 385
Alexander, of Lycopolis, 377
Alexander, pliysician, ii. 50
Alexander, Frcf. of Egypt, 218
Alexander (Psalidios), logothete, ii.
227, 230, 310

Alexandria, population of, 88, 216 ;
corn transport, 213 ; character-
istics of, 2l5 sq.; Jew's at, 216,
218; paganism, 217 ; dis-

turbances under Cyril, 218 sq. ; in
reign of Leo I., 358, 402 ; seditions
in Justinian’s reign, ii. 342 ; corn
distributions at, 358
Alexandria, see of, struggle for
supremacy of, 355-358 {see Theo-
philus, Cyril)

Alged5n, ii. 244
Alicante, 331
Aligern, ii. 271, 277
Al-Mundhir, see Mundhir
Alpes Cottiae, ii. 257, 278 ; made a
province, 282
Altinum, ii. 262 sq.

Alypia, 338
Amalalierga, ii. 302
Amalafrida, 461 ; ii. 129 ; murder of,
158, 161

Amalafrida Tlieodenanda, 461
Amalaric, king, ii. 161, 286
Amalasuntha, marriage, ii. 150 ;
regency, 159 sqq.; imprisonment
and death, 163 sqq. ; portrait of,
159 ; Cassiodorus on, 221
Amantius, chamberlain of Arcadius,
14^ sq.

Amantius, chamberlain of Anastasius,
ii. 16 sq. ; death, 20
Amantius, 7nag. 7nil. Or., ii. 420
Amasea, 94 ; ii. 393
Amazaspes, ii. 92

Ambrose, archbishoj) of Milan, con-
deinns interest, 55 ; funeral oration
on Theodosius, 106 ; urges anti-
pagan measures, 369
Amida, 94 ; captured by Kavad, ii.
11 ; besieged by Romans, 13 ;
bought back, 14
Amiens, 186
Aming, ii. 281 sq.

Ammaedera, ii. 149
Ammatas, 131 sqq.

Ammianus Marceliinus, 104
Ammonius, poet, 135
Ammonius, philosopher, 399
Ammonius Sacas, 217
Amorkesos, ii. 8
Anagast, 319, 434 ; ix. 296
Anaplus, 87, 452

Anastasia, sister of Theodora, ii. 28
Anastasiopolis, see Baras
Anastasiopolis, in Thrace, ii. 308, 309
Anastasius I., Emperor, election,
430 ; coronation, 431 ; marries
Ariadne, 432 ; appearance and
chai’acter, ib. ; Dihoros, ib. ;
Isaurian wur, 432 sqq. ; Long Wail,
435 sq. ; heterodoxy, 43& sq. ;
ecclesiastical policy, 430 sqq.;
financial economy, 441 sqq.;
abolishes 441; xniid-

ness, 446 ; monetary reform, 446

INDEX

457

sq. ; Vitalian’s rebeilion, 447 sqq, ;
death, 452 ; negotiations with
Tiieoderic, 453 sq, ; relations with
Tlieoderic, 460, 463 sq. (q^. 467)
Anastasius II., Pope, 440, 453
Anastasius, envoy to Persia, ii. 93, 95
Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, ii.
393

Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantin-
ople, 236

xinatolius, mag. mil., negotiates
treaties with Attila, 275, 276
Anatolius, curator domus div., ii. 353,
355

Ancona, ii. 195, 196, 256, 258 sq.
Ancyra, as a summer resort, 129, 138 ;

attacked b'y Marcian, 395
Andas, ii, 323
Andorida, 200
Angaries, ii. 325
Angers, 346

Angles, at Constantinople, ii. 258
Angion, ii. 108
Augon, ii. 280
Aniabedes, ii. 102
Anianus, bishop, 292
Anicii, gens of, 163, 409
Anio, r.V ii. 182, 283
Annona, 32 ; annonae foedeiuticae,
42 ; the tax, 46 sq.

Anonvmus Byzantius (sixth century),
ii. 75, 149, 292

Anonymus Valcsianus, chi’onicle of,
389, 423, 469
Ansila, 255
Antae, see Slavs
Antacopolis, ii. 353
Antalas, ii. 141, 145 sqq.

Anthemiolus, 339, 342
Anthemius, Praet. Pref., his wail, 70 ;
career, 159; sends troops against
Alaric, 181 ; his regency, 212 sqq.
Anthemius, Emperor, son-in-law of
Marcian, 314 ; elevation, 335 ;
reign, 337 sqq. ; pagan leanings,
339 ; death, 340

xlnthemius, consul in A.D. 515, 429
Antlicmius of Tralles, architect, ii.
49 sqq.

Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantin-
ople, ii. 377

Anthologies : of Agathias, ii. 431 ;
Palatine,

Anthony, St., 383

Anthiisa, name of Constantmople, 69
Antinoo|)olis, ii, 59
Antioch ( Syrian ), population of, 88 ;
attacked by Sabeiroi, 114 ; Eudocia
at, 226 ; theological school of, 350,
356 ; earthquakes, (a.b. 428) 321,
(a.d. 526) ii. 46, (a.d. 529) 75. ;
besieged by Chosroes and demol-

ished, 96 sq. ; captives taken to
Persia, 99 sq. ; its fortifications,
90 ; rebxiilt, 100
Antioch (Isaurian), 433
Antiochus, proconsul of Achaia, 120
Antiochus, eunuch, 212, 214
Antiochus, jurist, 234
Antiochus, Prefect of Italy, ii. 282
Antipodes, the, ii. 319
Antonina, wife of Belisarius, origin,
and children, ii. 56 ; relations with
Theodora, ih. ; entraps John the
Cappadocian, 56 sqq. ; passion for
Theodosius, 60 ; survived Boli-
sarius, 69 ; accompanies him to
Africa, 129, 135 ; goes to Naples,
188 ; causes death of Constantino,
192 sq.i wifch Belisarius in Italy
(a.d. 546-548), 239 ; feared by
John, ih. ; at Porto, 240 sq. ; at
Croton, 247 ; goes to Constantin-
ople and x^J-'oeuros recall of Beii-
sariiis, 248 sq. ; against l^ope

Silverius, 378 sq. ; Procoxnus on,
426

Antoninus, bishop of Exfiiesus, 148
Anzalas, ii. 265
Anzitene, ii, 344

Apamea, 94, 96 ; Chosroes at, ii. 98
Aphrodisiuin (in Africa), ii. 131
Ax>hthartodocetism, ii. 375, 393
Apoilinaris (minister of Constantine
III), 190

Apoilinaris of Laodicea, 350
Axxoilinaris, see Sidonius
Appion, Pr. Pref., 470 sq. ; ii. 20
Ax^scal, ii. 87
Apsilians, ii. 114 sqq.

Apulia, 464 ; ii. 231, 239
Aquila, translation of the Old Testa-
ment, ii. 366

Aquiieia, Alaric at, 160 ; centre of
roads, 167 ; headfxuarters of Asx>ar
(a.b. 425) and Placidia, 222 sqq.;
distance from Constantinoj>ie, 269 ;
razed by Attila, 294 ; distances
from Ilavenna, Constantinople,

■ Saloiia, ii, 225
Aquiiieum, 166

Aquitaine, Visigoths in, 196 ; Acjiii-
tania IX. granted to them, 204 ;
provinces of, 207; withdrawal of
Boman governor from Aouitaiiia
II, 242

Arabia, see Himyariies, Sa.racens
Arabia, Boman provinta^ 37
Arabissus, 94, 157 ; ii. 344
Aratiiis, ii, 80, 213, 298, 303
Arbazaeius, general, 159 sq.
Arbogastes, 99, .106
Area, ii, 344

Arcadia, d. of xVreadius, 131

458 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Arcadia, wife of 2eno, 3S9
Arcadia, province, ii. 343
Arcadiopolis, 268 ; taken by Huns,
274 ; Riigians at, 297 ; Tbeoderic
Strabo at, 413

Arcadius, Emperor, reign of, 106 sqq . ;
date of birth, etc., 106 ; physical
appearance, 107 ; marriage, 109 ;
death, 159 ; jhllar, 135 ; legislation
against heretics, 379 sq. ; will, ii. 2
Arcadius, son of Theodosius II., 220
Arcadius, Pr. Pref. Or., 402
Arehaeopolls, ii. 116 sq.

Archelaus, ii. 141
Archers, ii. 78
Archiadas, 377
AfchimandriteSi 384
Architecture, 262 sqq. ; ii. 50 sqq.,
284 sq.

Ardaburius, father of Aspar, cam-
paign against John in Italy, 222
sq. ; Persian campaign, ii, 4
Ardaburius, son of Aspar, mag. mil.
per Or.j 316 ; Patrician, 317 ;
death, 320

Ardalio, r., battle of, 122
Ardaric, 277, 291, 296
Ardashir, ii. 6
Arelate, see Arles

Areobindus, general of Theodosius II.,
255

Areobindus, general of Anastasius,
proclaimed Emperor, 439 ; ii. 12 ;
consular diptych, ib. ; death, 146
Argek, ii. 1 10
Argos, Goths at, 119
xiriadne, Empress, 317-318; 390;

hatred to Illus, 394, 395 sq. ;
portraits of, 429 ; chooses Anas-
tasius as Em])eror, 430 ; marries
him, 432

Arianism, decline of, 349 ; among
Germans, ],)olitical consequences of,
347; of the Vandals, 257, 259;
at Constantinople, 133 ; Justinian
suppresses, in Africa, ii. 139 ;
Justin’s policy towards, 150 sq.
Ariarathea, ii. 344

Ariminum, Alaric at, 179, 183 ;

battle between Aetius and Boniface,
248; Gothic siege of, ii. 195 sqq. ;
Narses at, 263

Aristotle, translations by Boethius,
ii. 219 ; commentaries on, 309, 370 ;
influence of his logic on theology,
374 _

Aristus, wmg. 435
Arles, besieged by Gerontius, 192 ; by
Constantins, 193 ; tyrant Sebastian
acknowledged at, 195 ; Constantius
at, 198 ; seat of Praetorian Prefects,
207. 36.3 ; commercial centre, 208 ; i

besieged by Visigoths, 242 ; Avitus
invested at, 326 ; Visigoths repulsed
from, 322 ; seized by Euric, 343 ;
conflict over the see of, 362 sqq.
Armatus, mag. mil., 392 sq.

Armenia, partition in a.d. 387, 94;
Aimenian laws of inheritance, ii.
345 ; Mornan, reorganised by Jus-
tinian, 90 sq., 344 sq. ; Foiu'th
Armenia, 91, 92, 344 : Armenians
in Roman service, 345 ; Persian,
rebellion (a.d. 454), 7 ; toleration
granted, ib., 88 ; Church of, 88 sq.
Armorica, 202, 206 ; rebellion, 250 ;
: , . 342

Arms, manufacture and sale of, ii. 356
Army, Roman, in fourth and fifth
centuries, 34 sqq ; Germans in, 38,
99 ; recruiting for, 39 ; numbers of
c. A.D. 428, 40 sq. ; changes in
tactics during the fifth century, 41 ;
use of cavalry, ib. ; pay of soldiers,
47; in sixth century, ii. 75 sqq.;
use of cavalry, 85, i37 ; numbers
of, in sixth century, 358 sq.
Amegisclus, 275
Amobius, 302
Arras, 187

Arsaces, conspires against Justinian,
ii. 67

Arsacius, l^atriarch of Constantinople,
157

Arsenius, deacon, 107
Arsenius, Samaritan, ii. 381
Arson, punishment of, ii. 415
Ariabae, 469

Artabanes, conspires against Jus-
tiiiiaii, ii. 66 .9^3'. ; mag. mil., 68;
in Africa, 146; in Sicily, 253, 255,
260 ; at battle of Capua, 279
Artabazes, ii. 2.30
Artaxata, ii. 3
Artemidorus, 416
Aru th, Hhriil, i i. 26 1
Arvandus, 338

Arzanene, 93 ; invaded by Romans,
ii. 13

Arzus, 268
Ascan, ii. 83 sq.

Asclepigenia, the elder, 377
Aselepigenia, the younger, 377
Asclepiodotus, physician, 399
Asclepiodotus, Neapolitan, ii. 175, 177
Asclepiodotus, ex-prefect, ii. 367
Ascoli, ii 235

Asdihg Vandals, 99 ; invade C4aui,
186 ; invade Spain, 192 ; recog-
nised by Hoiiorius, 206, see Vandals
Asemus, river, 267 ; town, 274
Asia, proconsul of, 27
Aspar, campaign against John in
Italy, 222 sqq.; consul, 225;

INDEX

459

silver disc of, ib, ; campaign in
xifrica, 248 ; promotes elevation
of Leo I., 314 sq, ; mag. in prae$.>
ib. ; danger of his influence, 316 sq. ;
fall, 319 sq.; 322
Assidonia, ii. 287
Assisi, ii. 235
Astabedh, ii. 10
Asterius of Amasea, 113, 131
Asterius, general, in Spain, 208
Asti, 161
Astorga, 328
Asturius, 252
Asylum, right of, 65
Athalaric, king, ii. 152 ; reign, 159 sqq.
Athanagild, king, ii. 286 sq.
Athanasius II., Patriarch of Alex-
andria, 436

Athanasius (Anastasius ?), grandson
of Theodora, ii. 27

Athanasius, Praet. Pref. of Italy, ii.
206

A than If, arrives in Italy, 178 ; com.
domesL, 180 ; succeeds Alaric, 185 ;
enters Gaul, 194 ; suppresses
Jovinus, 195 ; captures Narbonne,

196 ; marries Placidia, 197 ; phiio-
Roman policy, ib. ; ravages Aqui-
taine, 198 ; his son, 199; death, ib.

Athenais, see Eudocia
Athenodorus, 433

Athens, Alaric at, 120, 370 ; univer-
sity of, 372, 376 sqq. ; Platonic
Academy, 376; Neoplatonism, 377
sq. ; closing of the schools, ii. 369
sq. ; the Parthenon, 370
Athyras, 268, 274

Atropatene, Romans invade, ii. 107
Attains, Priscus, origin, 178 ; crowned
Augustus, 180 ; progress through
Italy, 182; discrowned, 182 ; in
Gaul, 194; at Athauifs marriage,

197 ; resumes Imperial title, 199;
fate, 200

Atticus, Patriarch, 214
Attila, appearance, 272 ; character,
272 sq. ; pedigree, 273 ; agreement
with Theodosius II., ib. ; invasions
of Balkan peninsula, 273 sqq. ; new
treaty with Theodosius, 275 ; empire
and court, 276 sqq. ; discovery of
Sword of Mars, 277 ; Latin secre-
taries, 278; his name, ib. ; wives,
281; descni>tion of his banquet,
287 sq. ; claims hand of Honoria,
290, 294 ; negotiation with Gaiseric,
291; Riptiarian Franks appeal
to, ib. ; invasion of Gaul, 291 sqq. ;
defeated, 293; invades Italy, 294
sq. ; death, 296 ; its results, ? 6.
Aucioin, ii. 261, 302, 304
Augila, ii. 371

Augusta f the title, 9, 10, 138
Augusta Vindelicorum, 166, 167
Augustales, shorthand writers, 32
Augustalis, praefectus, see Egypt
Augustine, bishop of Hippo, relations
with Boniface, 245, 247 ; death,
ib. ; Oivitas De% j)urposo and
plan, 302 sqq. ; Neoplatonism, 303,
375 ; Manichaeanism, 303, 379; on
^ war and patriotism, 310; combats
Pelagianism, 360 ; attempts to con-
vert the Donatists, 380 ; “ eomx^el
them to come in,” 381
'Aulon, 270; ii. 164
Aurelian, leader of anti-German
party, 127 ; wife, 128 ; Praet.
Pref., 132 ; surrendered to Gainas,
133 ; consul, 134; second Prefecture,
214, 219, 220 „

Aurelian, Emperor, 12
A'urum comnarmm,

A'ltrum oblaticmnif 49
Austriguna, ii. 275

Autocracy, the Roman, eonstitutioiial
principles of, 5 sqq.

Auvergne (Arverni), 342
Auxiluiy 34 sq., 38, 122
Auximum, ii. 195, 200; besieged by
Belisarius, 207 sqq. ; retaken by
Ostrogoths, 234
Avars, ii. 314 sqq.

Avienus, Gennadius, 295
Avignon, 342
Avitochol= Attila, 435
Avitus, Emperor, Pr. Pref. of Gaul,
250 ; persuades Visigoths to march
against Attila, 292 ; mag. ulr. mil.,
326 ; proclaimed Emperor at Tou-
louse, ib. ; coins, ib. ; fate, 328
Avitus, bishop of Vienne, 463
Axum, ii. 322, 324, 325
Azareih, ii. 86, 88

Bacandae (or bagaudae), 252
Baduarius, general, ii. 296, 312
Baetica, Silings in, 203 ; x^sdings in,
208; Justinian’s conquests in, ii.
287

Bakeries, 60

Balearic islands, Vandals in, 258, 333 ;

recovemd by Empire, ii. 137
Balkan Peninsula, geography of,
265 sqq.

Balkh, ii. 5
Banduan, 38
Bankei's, ii. 357

Barbaria, east coast of Africa, ii, 320
Barcelona, 198 sq.. 248
Baresmanas, ii. 83 sq.

Bargiis, 117
Barrihis, 38
Basentus, r., 184

460 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Basil, St., his Rule, 383
Basil, bishop of Aix, 342
Basil, consul in a.d. 480, 409
Basil, the last consul (a.d. 541), ii.
348

Basilides, quaestor, ii. 41
Basiliscus, Emperor, commands ex-
pedition against Vandals, 337
reign of, 391 ; his Encyclicai,

403 ; coins, 393
Bassi, Roman family, 164
Batava Gastra, 16G
Batnae, 94, 96
Banto, 108

Bavaria, origin of, 461
Bazanis, ii. 344
Boasts, fights with wild, 438
Bederiana, ii. 18
Belabitene, ii. 90, 344
Belgica, Lower, 242; Upper, 249 ;
decline of Roman powder in, 342 ;
Prank conquest, 346
Beiisarius, at the Nika revolt, ii.
42 ^qq . ; retainers, 42, 77 ; hated
by John the Cappadocian, 56 ; his
estates, 67 ; discovers Antonina’s
adultery, 60 ; reconciled to her^ 61 ;
begins career in Armenia, 80 1 mop.
mil. Or., 81 ; wins battle of Baras,
82 sqq. ; defeated at Callinioum, 86
sq. ; recalled, 87 ; returns to East
in 541, campaign in Mesopotamia,
103; in Euphratesia, 105 sq. \
Vandalic expedition, 127 sqq. ;
crpaTTjybs avTOKpiroio, 127, 170 ;
military capacities discussed, 137,
198, 249 ; Vandalic triumph, 139 ;
suppresses mutiny at Carthage,
143 sq. ; Italian expedition, 170 ;
conquers Sicily, 171 ; march to
Naples, 175; siege of Naples, 176
sqq. ; besieged in Rome, 180 sqq. ;
his horse, 182 ; letter to Justinian,
185 ; interview with Gothic envoys,
189 ; Constantine to death,

192 ; reasons of his confidence in
success, 194 ; relieves Ariminum,
198 ; dissensions with Narses,
200 sq., 205; Ostrogoths wdsh to
proclaim him Emperor, 211 sqq. ;
enters Ravenna, 213 ; loyalty to
Justinian, 214 ; coldly received
at Constantinople, ib. ; sent to
Italy again, 234 sq. ; comes stabuU,
ib. ; letter to Justinian, 235 ;
lands at Porto to relieve Rome, 239 ;
breaks through the boom, 241 ;
illness, ib., 245 ; letter to Totila,
243 ; reoccupies Rome, 245 ; goes
to Bruttii, 246 ; at Rome again,
248 ; recalled, 249 ; de|)Oses Pope
Silvorius, 378 ; interviews with

Vigiiius, 388, 389 ; relations of
Procopius to, 419 sqq.

Benedict, St., ii. 224 sq. ; interview
with Totila, 233
Bergamum, ii. 202

Beroea (Syrian), 94, 96; demolished
by Ghosroes, ii. 96

Beroea (Stara Zagora), 267; ii. 309,
398

Berytus, law school of, 438 ; ii. 369
Bessas, in Colchis, ii. 114 sqq. ; de-
posed, 118 ; sent to Italy, 170;

: at Rome, 192 ; in Spoleto, 227 ; at

battle of Mugello, 230 ; commander
in Rome, 236 sqq. ; flees from
Rome, 242
Bessi, 315
Bigilas, 279, 281
Bllimer, 340
Bira|)arach, ii. 6

Bishops ; municipal influence, 61,
65 ; usefulness of Gallic, in fifth
century, 347 ; protectors against
ox)pression, 416 ; i>rommence in
municipal government, ii. 351, 361
sq.; incomes of and fees paid by, 361 ;
s€fi Clergy

Bithrapsas, battle of, 434
Bizye, 297
Bleda, 272, 275

Blemves, 237 sq., 354, 433 ; ii. 329,
371

BlemyomacJda, 238
Blesehanes, ii. 103

Boethius, El. Manlius (consul in
A.I). 487), 409

Boethius, Anicius Manlius Torquatus
Severinus (son of preceding), 455 ;
mag. off., ii. 153 ; prosecution and
death, 154 sq, ; Be coyisol. phil.,
21^ sqq. ; other works, 219 sq.
Bohemia, 99
Bologna, 171 ; ii. 234
Bolsena, lake of, ii. 164
Boniface, general, defends Marseilles,
196; suj)ports Placidia, 223;
activities as Count of Africa, 244
sq. ; defeats Imperial army, 245 ;
relations with Augustine, 245 ; in-
vites Vandals, 245 sq. ; reconciled
with Placidia, 247 ; defeated by
Vandals, ib. ; mag. utr. mil,, 248;
death, ib.

Boniface I., Pox^e, 363
Boniface II., Pope, ii, 380
Bononia, .see Bologna ; Boulogne
Bonus, ii. 315
Boraides, ii. 19, 47, 67, 69
Bordeaux, Athaulf seizes, 196 ; burns,
198 ; surrendered to Visigoths,
204 ; distance from Constaiitinox)le,
269

INDEX

461

Bospiiorus, dimensions, 67 sq, ;
suburbs of, 86 sq,

Bosporus (Crimean), ii. 80, 310 sqq.

Bostra, 96

Boulogne, 187, 188

Bourges, 342

Bracara, 208, 327

Bread, distribution at Coustantinoj)le,
74 ; sale of, ii. 356 ; 6‘ee Corn
Bregantinus, ii. 203
Bretons, 202, 342
Brigctio, 166

Brisa, or Eerisa (Bolus), ii. 344
Britain, fleets in the Channel, 44 ;
legion called to Italy from, 161 ;
rebellion (a.d. 406-407), 187 sq. ;
condition of, in reign of Honorius,
200-202 ; probable date of Saxon
conquest, 201 n. ; Belisarius ironic-
ally offers it to the Ostrogoths, ii. 190
Brittany, origin of, 202
Brixia (Brescia), ii. 281
Brum-alia, 438

Bruttii, conquered by Totila, ii. 231 ;
passes between Lucania and Bruttii,
247.

BrytaCy feast of, 437
Buecelin (called Butilin by Agathias),
ii, 276, 277 sqq.

Bucellarii, 43 ; private retainers, 321 ;
ii. 77, 127 '

Bulgarians, in Zeno’s service, 421 ;
= Unogundurs, 435 ; invade Empire
under Anastasias, ib. ; em23loy-
nient as Federates under Vitaliah,
447 sq, ; defeated by Ostrogoths,
460 ; invasions in Justinian’s reign,
ii. 296 sq., 302
Bulla Regia, ii. 136
Biirceiitius, ii. 208 sq.

Burdigala, see Bordeaux
Burgaon, Mt., battle of, ii. 143
Burgundians, 98, 99 ; numbers of,
105 ; expansion on the Rhine, 187 ;
first kingdom in Gaul, 200 ; de-
feated by Huns, 249; second
kingdom in Savoy, ib. ; act with
Aetius against Huns, 292 ; oppose
Majorian, 330 ; obtain Lugdunensis
I., 331 ; extension of their power,
341 sq. ; language, 344 ; help
Odovacar against Ostrogoths, 423 ;
devastate north Italy, 424 sq. ;
embassy of Epiphanius to, 427 ;
lose Provence, 402 ; relations with
the Empire and Theoderic, 463 ;
with Amalasuiitha, ii. 161 ; con-
quered by Franks, ib. ; invade
Italy, 203 sq.

Busalbos, 395

Buzes, ii. 82 ; in command against
Persia, 95 sqq., 119

Byzacena, 255
“Byzantinism,” 4, 110
Byzantium, see Constantinople

Caecilian, Pr. Pref., 178
Caeciliana, 96
Caeiestius, 360 sq.

Caesar, the title, 7
Caesaraugusta (Zaragoza), 190, 344
Caesa.rea (Capj)adocian), 94
Caesarea (Mauretanian), ii. 140
Caesarius, Praet. Pref., 128, 132
Caesena, ii. 195, 213, 231
Cagliari, ii. 260

Calabria, conquered by Totila, ii.

231 ; recovered by John, 239, 246
Calama, ii. 149

Calendar, Christian (festivals), 373 :

Armenian, ii. 89
Gales (Cagii), ii. 195, 288
Calliana, ii. 320

Callinicum, ii. 3 ; battle of, 86 sq. ;

Persians capture, 106 ; 121
Caliinicus, his Vita Eypatii, 275
Calliopius, 471
Calopodius, ii. 72 A*g.

Calvenzano, ii. 155
Cambrai, 243
Campidtidores, 315
Campsa, ii. 281
Candaira, Mt., 420
Candich, ii. 315
Candidati, 37
Candidian, 353

Candidus, bishop of Sergiopolis, ii,
95, 104

Candidus, historian, 338
Cannibalism, ii. 14, 206
Canon law, 65 sq. i ii. 360
Canopus, 373
Canusium, ii. 239

Capitals (architectural), forms of, ii.
51

Capitatio, 47; humana, 48; pleheia,
\ animalmm,

Capit'imi, 46
Cappadocia, ii, 341 sq.

. Cappadocia, Imperial estates in, 33, 52
: Caprae (Caprara), ii. 268, 291
Capsa, ii. 149

Capua, 184 ; battle of, ii. 279 sqq.
Caputvada, ii. 130

[Carausius] colleague of C^onstantine
III.(?) in Britain, coin of, 189
Carbonarian forest, '243
Carcasan, ii. 147
Caria, ii. 340
Carinus, 448
Garnuntuni, 100 sqq,

I Carpathus, 213

[ Carpilio, father-in-law of Aetius, 241
1 Carpilio, son of Aetius, 241

462 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Carrhae, 94; ii. ill
Cartilage, 195, 196 ; taken by Van-
dals, 254 ; Vandal capital, 257,;
see of, 259 ; ca pturcd by Belisarius,
ii. 135 ; besieged by mutinous
soldiers, 143 6‘^.

Carthagena (New Carthage), 195 ; ii.
287

Carthaginiensis, 203
Casilinum, ii. 278 sq.

Caspian Gatos, ii. 6, 98
Cassandrca, ii. 308, 309
Cassian, 385

Cassiodorus (great-grandfather of
Senator), 258

Cassiodorus (grandfather of Senator),
ii. 220

Cassiodorus (father of Senator), com.
s. larg.f 409, 458 ; Br. Prel of
Italy, 458 ; ii. 220

Cassiodorus Senator, PL Magnus
Aurelius, eulogy of Eutharic, ii.
152 ; mag. off., 154 ; praises
Witigis, 177 ; career and writings,
220 sqq . ; monasteries, 222 ; old
age, 223

Cassius, mag. mil. Gall., 253
Castinus, 209, 210, 222 sqq.

Castra Martis, 271
Oastrensis s. qKilatii, 33
Castricia, 138, 148
Catafractarii, ii. 78
Catane (Catania), ii. 171, 357
Cato, Fields of, battle of, ii. 147
Catona, 184

Caucasian passes, ii. 0, 10, 88, 121 ;

see Caspian Gates
Celeia, 167

Celer, mag. off., 439 ; ii. 13, 17
Celcstine, Pope, 354, 363
Cellae, ii. 149
Ceneta, ii. 278
CensuaUs, 21
Centenari’us, 40

Contumceilao, ii. 191, 252, 254, 271,
275

Ccrasus, ii. 344
Cerbonius, bishop, ii. 269
Cerventinus, ii. 205
Ceylon, ii. 321, 325, 332
Chalazar, ii. 248

Chalcedon, Arcadius and Ga'inas meet
at, 133 ; Vigilius at, ii. 387 sq . ; see
under Councils

Chalcis, in Syria, 94; ii. 86 ; Chosroes
at, 98

Chaieb=:EIa Atzbeha, ii. 323
“ Chalons, battle of,” see Maurica
Chamberlain, Grand, see Praepositus
s. cub.

Chanaranges, ii. 67
Charachen, ii. 330

Chartularii, 32
Cherris, fort, 319, 398, 399
Cherson, ii. 310 sq.,^ 312, 357
Chersonese, Thracian, 275 ; ii. 304,
306 sq., 309

Chersonese, Taurie, 402 ; ii. 310 sqq.
Chettus, 306
Chilbudiiis, ii. 296, 297
Childebert, king (Frank), ii. 286
Childeric, king (Frank), 342, 345, 346
China, ii. 317, 321, 331 sq.

Chinialon, ii. 303
Chlodio, king, 242 sq.

Chlodwig, see Clovis
Chorianes, ii, 114
Choricius, ii. 420, 430
Chosro-Antiocheia, ii. 100
Chosroes Nushirvan, accession, ii. 88 ;
reign, and enconragenient of litera-
ture, 89 ; receives embassies from
Goths and Armenians, 92, 205 sq. ;
military campaigns of, 93 sqq. ;
plan of a Euxine fleet, 113 ; receives
Greek philosophers, 370
Christians, number of, in fourth
century, 366 ; in Persia, ii. 2 4 ;

in Armenia, 6
Christmas day, 373
Christodorus, ii. 431
Chronica Gallica, system of dating in,
201

Chronicles, popular, ii. 435
: Chronology, world-periods of Eusebius,
Augustine, etc., 304
Chrysaphius, 229, 235, 236, 355 ;

plots murder of Attila, 276
Ohrysargyron, 49, 441
Chrysoretiis, 354

Chrysostom, John, Patriarch, con-
demns interest, 55 ; statistical
statements of, 87 ; elected Patri-
arch, 131 ; protects Eutropius, ib. ;
intercedes with Ga’inas, 133 ; char-
acter and socialistic views, 138 sqq. ;
his circle, 141 sq.', relations with
Eudoxia, 142 ; his enemies, and
indiscretions, 148 sq. ; enmity of
Theophilus to, 150 sq. ; offends
Eudoxia, 151 sq. ; charges against,
at Synod of the Oak, 152 sq. ; first
exile, 153; recalled, 154; offends
Eudoxia again, 155 ; second exile,
157 ; death, 158 ; closes toinples,
370

Church, organisation of, 63 sqq. ;
relations to the State, 338 sqq. ;
controversies in the fifth century,
Z4Q sqq.; in the sixth, ii. 372 sq.;
see Councils, Persecution, Incarna-
tion, Predestination
Chusira, ii. 149
Oiballae, 166

INDEX

463

Cicero, De repuhlica, 376
Cillium, battle of, ii. 145
Circesium, 93 ; ii. 93
Circumcellions, 380
Circus factions, see Hippodrome
Cirta, ii. 140

Civita Vecchia, see Ccntiimcellae
Clarissimi, 19 sq.

Classes: Sambricay Venetum., etc., 44
Classis, X)ort of Ravenna., 178 ; ii. 214,
285

Claudian, poet, In Rufinum, 113 sq,\
De HI. cons. Ilon.y liO; Delll. cons.
Hon.y 121 ; Bell. Gild.y 123 sq. ; In
Eiiirop.y 125, 127 ; De cons. SUl,
3 36 ; statue of, at Rome, 137 ; trib.
et noiar., ib. ; Bell. Gotk,y 164 ; De
VI. cons. Hon., 165; fate of, 105;
paganism of, ib.

Ciaudiopoiis, 433
Claudius (Gotliicus), Emperor, 75
Clomcntinus, consul in 513, 429
Clergy, celibacy of, 387 ; legislation
concerning, ii. 361 sq,

CJlodiana, 270

Cloves from Further India, ii. 321
Clovis, king, 346 sq., 401, 463 sq. ;

honorary consul, 404
Ciusium, ii. 195
Clysma, ii. 318
Cocoas, ii. 265
Codex Justinianus, see Law
Codex Theodosi anil's, see Law
Godlcilli, 19
Coemption, ii. 340
CoTiortalmi, 31
Cohorts, 35

Coinage, Imperial style on coins, 16 ;
Oonstantinian, 54 sq. "; value of
solidus ( = arureus = nomisma), 54 ;
double denarius, ib. ; silicjiia, 55 ;
CoxOB, 54 ; reform of Anastasius,
446 sq. ; table of divisions of the
solidus, 447 ; universal currency of
Imperial coins, ii. 322 sq. ; coins
found in India, ib. ; coinage of
Justinian, 357 ; see under names of
Emperors

Collatio hisiralis, 49, 51, 441 ; glebalis,
50

CoUegia, guilds, 60
Collutlms, ii- 431
Oolonea, ii. 344
Coloni, colonatns, 56 sqq.

Comana (Gcuinenck), on the Iris, ii.

_ 344

Comana (ShaliT-), on the >Sarus, ii. 344

('‘omentiolus, ii. 287

Coynes, title, 23

Comes Ay'gcyiiorateyisis, 118

Comes Armeniae, ii. 90

Comes Britanmaruyn, 201

Comes coynmerciorv yyi, ii, 356
Comes dispositionmn, 30
Comes domesticorum, 33, 37
Gomes foederatorum, 447 sq.

Comes Gild, pair., 125
Gomes Hieri et Ponti, ii. 355
Ocymes His'paniarnm, 208
Comes Orientis, 27
Comes patnynonii, 442 ; ii. 354
Comes patrimonii per lialiayyi, ii. 215,
354

Comes qyrivatae largitionis, 199
Coynes rei privaiae, 51 sq., 442 ; ii. 354
Gomes s. largUioyiiini, 51 sq.

Comets, 137

Comitatenses, 35 ; ii. 75 .sq.

Cofnites, 2S, 36
Cornites domesllcortun, 34
Ccmiites histmiemi, ii. 339, 344
Conntes rei yniliiaris, ZQ
Comitiaci, 458
Comito, ii. 28, 71
Commagenae (near Tulin), 166
Com mageiie, Persians invade, ii. 104 sqq.
Coirimetikiriehsis, 32
Commerce, with Persia, ii. 3, 121 sq. ;
with India, Arabia, Africa, etc.,
316 sqq. ; in silk, 330 sqq.
6bw/?te?*cmr?J, ii. 331, 355
Communistic doctrines, in Persia, ii. 9
Gornp%(lsor, 49
Comum (Como), ii. 202
C^onon, bishoj), 397, 433
Conon, general, ii. 195, 197 ; besieged
in Naples, 231 sqq. ; commander
in Rome, 246 ; death, 248
Consentia (Cosenza), 1S4 ; ii 247
Consilium, Imperial, 23
Coyisisiorkim, 23 ; under Thcoderic,

11. 153 sqq.

Constans, Caesar (tyrant), 190 sqq. ;
death, 192

Constans, general of Attains, 181 sq.
Constantia (in jMesopotamia), 94 ; ii.

12, 13; seat of duke of Meso-
potamia, 88

Constantia (on the Danube), 274
Constantian, ii. 107, 174 ; conimander
in Ravenna, 227 ; letter to
Justinian, 233 ; comes stabuli, 298
Constantine I. (the Great), innova-
tions and reforms of, 1, 5, 2l>, 26 ;
foundation of Constantinopi<‘, 69
sqq. ; Palace, 78 sq. ; iiolicy in
regard to paganism, 366 .sq. ; laws
on divorce, ii. 407 ; criminal
legislation, 4 10 sqq.

Constantine III., tynint in (Oiul and
Spain, 169, 188 sqq. ; death, 194
Constantine, Praet. Pref., his wall, 70
Constantine, general under Beiisarius,
executed, ii. 192 sq.

464 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Oonstantinoplc :

description of, chap. iii. ; situation,
67 sq . ; dedication, 69 ; secret
name, ib. ; population, 70,
87 Rq.

distances from Eome, Aquileia,
Dyrrliachiiim, ii. 225
earthquakes, 07, 154, 394
fires, 157, 322, 393 sq. ; ii. 41 sqq,
topography and buildings :
Achilieiis, diabatika of, 75
acropolis, 69
Amastrianos, 76
aqueduct, 73
Basilica, 77, 394 ; ii. 43
Baths, of Zeuxippus, 75; ii 41,
53 ; of Alexander, ii. 43
bridge, 72
^vBaptVi 451
Capitolium, 69, 232
Chalkoprateia, quarter of, 77,
393 ; ii. 43
churches :

Holy Apostles, 76, 77 ; ii. 53
Homonoia, 322
St. Anastasia, 150, 152; ii. 51
St. Aquilina, ii. 43
St. Conon, ii. 40
St. Irene, ii. 53
St. John (of Stiidion), ii, 61
St, Laurentius, ii. 40
St. Pantelecmon, ii. 27
SS. Peter and Paul, ii. 49, 387
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, ii. 49
St. Sophia, 75 ; burned down
(404), 157 ; burned downi
(532), ii, 41 ; rebuilt, 48 sqq.
St. Theda, 451

St. Theodore Sphoracias, ii. 43
St. Thomas, 322
Theotokos Hodegetria, 238
Theotokos, in Biachernae, 238
Theotolvos, in Chalkoprateia,
77, 238

cisterns, 73, 77

columns : of Constantine (Burnt
Column), 74 ; Theodosius I,,
75 ; Eudoxia, 155 ; Ar-
cadius, 75, 135; Marcian,
75 ; Claudius IL, 75 ; Jus-
tinian, 75

Eubuliis, hospice of, ii. 43
Exaldonion, 76

fora : Augiisteiim, 75, 155 ; ii. 53 ;
Constantine, 76, 437 ; Bous,
76; Taurus, or Theodosius,
76,395; Arcadius, 76
Galata, 60, 72

gates : of tlie Theodosian Wall,
71 ; Golden, ib., 76 ;
Charisii, 76 ; ii, 215 ; Pegfis, |

76, • ' ■ . ■'.1

Constantinople — conkl
topography and Iraiidings — conid.
harbours ; Golden Horn, 72 ;
Bosporion, 73 ; of Caesariiis,
73, 395 ; of Eleiitherius (or
Theodosius), 72 ; of Hor-
misdas (Bu cole on), 73 ; of
Julian (New), 72, 322
Hellenianae, 316
hills, 69

Hippodrome, 81 sqq., 396, 431,
437 ; ii. 44 sqq. ; gates of, 46 sq.
horrea, 73

houses : of Amantius, 322 ; of
Caeaarius, 395 ; of lihis, ib.

. Kathisma, .see Hippodrome
Kynegion, 69

Lausus, palace of, 76, 394 (burnt
down, partial^ ?) ; ii. 43
(burnt down again)
pLec;b\o(pov, 77
Milion, 69, 75
Nympbaeiim, 322
Octagon, ii. 43
Obapdvov, rd, 395
palaces :

Great Palace, general descrip-
tion, IS sq. ; communication
with Hippodrome, ii. 46 ;
parts of : Anna, i. 431 ; Aix-
giistcus, 79, 430 ; Chalke, 79;
ii. 41,53; clirysotriklinos, ii.
54; Consistorium, i 79, 430 ;
Daphne, 79 ; ii. 46 ; deiphax,
i. 395, 430; ii. 21, 23; ivory
gate, ii. 17 ; kocMias; ii. 46 ;
Kyrios (chapel of the Lord),
i. 79; Magnaura, 79; Scholar-
iaii quarters, 79 ; ii. 53 ;
tribunal, i. 79 ; triklinos of
the Candidati, 79 ; triklinos
of the Excubitors, 79 ; ii. 53 ;
triklinos of Nineteen Ak-
kubita, i. 79 ; ii. 17 ; tribunal
of Nineteen Akkubita, i. 431
of Biachernae, SO
of Hebdomon, SO, 229
of PTeiena, ii. 44
of Herion (Hieria), 88
of Hormisdas, 80 ; ii. 31, 49,
3S7

of Placidia, ii. 385, 387, 389
of l^laciiiianae, ii. 44
of Rufinianae, 88 ; ii. 57
■ of St. Mamas, 88, 322 ,
Philadelpliium, 76
Pittakes, 321

, Praetorium, 76 ; ii.,40, 43
Psamatliia, 384
Sampson, hospice of, ii. 43
Senate -houses, 75, 76 ; (in Au-
gusteum), ii. 41

INDEX

465

Constantinople — conid.

toposrapliv and biiildinss — contd,
Stadiuni, 69
Strategion, 69

streets’: Mese, 76, 322 ; ii. 43 ;
Regia, i. 76 ; Iloppai, ii.
28

suburbs : Anaj)lus, 87, 452 ;

Anthemius, 87 ; Boradion,
ib. ; Bryas, ib. ; Clialcedon,
ib. ; Chrysopolis, ib. ; Drys,
ib. ; Hebdomon, 80, 112 ;
Hestiae, 87 ; Herion (Hieria),
87 ; ii. 54 ; Ivarta Limeii,
i. 86 ; Proraotus, 87 ; St.
Mamas, 86 ; Satyrus, 87 ;
Sosthenion, 87, 450, 452 ;
convent of Metanoia, ii. 28 ;
see also above under Palaces
Sycae, 65, 452 ; ii. 65, 368
temples, 74
tetrastoon, 68, 75
theatres, 69 ; ii. 28
walls : of Severns, 68 ; of Con-
stantine, 69 ; Tlieodosian —
of Anthemius, 70 ; of Cyrus,
72

university of, 231 sq.

Constantiolus, ii. 41, 87, 296
Constantius II., Emperor, laws against
pagans, 367 ; letters to Abyssinian
kings, ii. 322

Constantius III., Emperor, opposes
Constantino III. in Gaul, 192 ;
character, 193 ; in Italy, 195 ;
campaign against Visigoths, 198 ;
second consulship, 199 ; marries
Piacidia, 203 ; settlement of Goths,
and organisation of Gaul, 204
sqq. ; ikiigustiis, 209 ; death, 210 ;
]50stumous recognition at Constan-
tinople, 222

Constantius, secretary of Attiia, 280,
282

Constantius (a Gallo-Roman), secre-
tary to Attiia, 282
Consiitvtionesj 13
Oonsulares, 27

Consuls, nomination of, 17 ; publica-
tion of names, 127 ; rank of, 20 ;
consular sx^ectacles, x)rogrammo of,
ii. 347

Consulship, abolition of, ii. 346 sqq.

Conventas, 24

Cox^per, from India, ii. 321

Corcyra, ii. 259

Corduba, ii. 287

Corduene, 93

Co-regents, constitutional position of,
6-7

Corinth, Goths at, 119
Corixd^^is, ii. 147

Com, transport from Egypt, 44, 60,
213 ; supply to Rome after Vandal
conquest of Africa, 256 sq, ; pi^“ice
of, in Italy under Thcoderic, 469 ,'
price in Egypt, ib. ; siege -x)rices,
ii. 238 ; supplies in Thrace and
Bithynia, 349
CorniculariuSf 32

Coronations, Imx)erial, 10-11 ; 236
(Marcian); 315 sq. (Leo I.); 389
(Zeno) ; 431 sq. (Anastasiiis) ; ii. 17
(Justin) ; coronation oaths, i. 14,
431

Corpus Juris Givilis, ii. 399
Gorrectores, 27

Corsica, Vandal conexuest, 258, 333 ;
recovered by- Emjhre, ii. 137 ;
Ostrogotliic exx)edition to, 260 ;
administration attached to Africa,
283

Cosmas, Indicoxdcustes, ii. 319 sqq.
Cosmas and Damian, 8S., as
cians, 373
Cottomenes, 400
Cotyacum, 228, 433
Councils, ecclesiastical, 53

(1) Ecumenical :

First (Nicaea), 05, 349
Second (ConstantinoxJo), 349, 351
Third (Ephesus), 65, 353
Fourth (Chaiccdon), 65, 357 sqq.
Fifth (Constantinoxdc), ii. 3SS

(2) Others :

Antioch (a.I). 341), 156 ; (a.d.

542) ii. 383

Carthage (a.d. 412), 361, (a.d.
416 and 418) ib.

Constantinople (a.b. 404), 156;
(a.d. 448) 355, (a.d. oil) 436,
(a.d. 518) ii. 372, (a.d. 536)
377, 392

Diospolis (a.d. 415), 361
Duin, ii. 88

Exdiesus (a.d, 449), 355
Gaza, ii. 3(81

Jerusalem (a.d. 415), 301
Milevis (a.d. 41(5), 152 sq.

Oak, the (a.d. 403), i52\sv;.

Rome (a.:d. 430), 352; (a.d. 495)
453, (svnodus
502) 465

Sardica (a.d. 336), 362
Seleucia (a.d. 410), ii. 3
Sidon (a.d. 512), 440
Turin (a.d, 417), 363
Tyre (a.d. 513), 441
Councils, diocesan,

' 207 sq., 338
Crathis, r., ii. 247
Cremona, taken by Odovaear, 424
Crimea, ii. 80 ; 310 sqq.

Crispinus, 7natj. eqiiit., 209

466 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Croton, ii. 246, 247 ; Gothic blockade
of, 258, 260
Crucifixion, ii. 414
Cucusus, 157, 393 ; ii. 344
CulleuSj punishment of the, ii. 410
Cumae, garrisoned by Belisarius, ii.
180, 231 ; besieged by Narses, 271,
6-^., 275 ; surrenders, 277
Oimei equit'um, 35
Curae palatiormn,

Curator civitatis, 60

Curator domus Augiistae, ii. 31

Curator dormis divinae, ii. 68, 353, 354 ;

dominicae domm, 355
Curiales, 59 sqq.

Curopalates, title, 8; ii. 71
Cursus publicus, 30, 115 ; ii. 38
Custom duties, 51 ; ii. 355 sq,

Cutsina, ii. 141, 147
Cyclades, ii. 340
Cynegius, 147, 368
Cyprian, bishop, 302
Cyprian, referendarius, ii. 153 sq,
Cyprian, general, ii. 207, 227, 230
235

Cyprus, attacked by Isaurians, 159 ;
church of, 65 ; under the quaestor
lust exercitus, ii. 340
Cyrene, 129

Cyril, Patriarch, policy of, 216;
quarrel with Orestes, 218 ; respon-
sible for murder of Hypatia, 219 ;
theological doctrines and contro-
versies, 351 sqq,

Cyril, officer under Belisarius, ii. 83
Cyril, mag. mil in Thrace, 449
Cyrrhus, 96

Cyrus, Praet. Prel, etc., 72, 227 sq. ;

relation to Nonnus, ii. 431
Cyzicus, ii. 58, 357

Dacia, diocese, provinces and towns
of, 271

Dacia mediterranea, 268, 269, 271
Dacia ripensis, 271 ; ii. 298, 300
Dacia (Transylvania), 100, 101
Dagisthaeus, ii. 113 sq., 264
Dakibiza, ii. 38

Dalisandus, two places so named, 394
Dalmatia, extent of province, 167;
transference to Eastern Emperor,
221, 225 sq. ; under Nepos, 410 ;
under Odovacar, ib. ; under Ostro-
goths, 462 ; recovered by Mundus,
ii. 169 sq. ; and by Constantian,
174

Dalmatius, abbot, 385
Damascius, Vita Isidori, 399 ; last
scho larch of the Academy, ii. Z%d sq.
Damascus, 96

Daniel, prophet, interpretation of his
prophecies, 197

Daniel, stylite, 383
Dante, on Pope Agapetus, ii. 378
Danube, r., flotillas on, 44, 213
Daras, foundation of, ii. 15, 81 ;
battle of, 82 sqq. ; refortified by
Justinian, 98 sq. ; besieged by
Chosroes, 99 ; as an emporium, 122
Dardania, 269, 271 ; ii, 309
Dardanus, 195
Daiiel, ii. 6

Darius, sent bv Placidia to Boniface,
.■ 247 ‘

Datius, archbishop, ii. 191, 202, 204 ;

at Constantinople, 385
Deaconesses, 141
Decii, family of the, 409
Decius, consul in A.n. 486, 409
Decoratus, ii. 153
Decretals, papal, 362
Decurions, see Curiales
Dediticiif ii. 400

Defensor civitatis, 61, 443; ii. 336,
362

Deification, of Emperors, 12
Demes, circus factions, 85 ; see Hippo-
drome

Demetrias, in Thessaly, ii. 309
Demetrius, bishop of Philippi, ii. 162
Demetrius, mag. mil, ii. 231 sq.
Demetrius, an official in Naples, ii.
232

Demosthenes, Praet. Pref., 445
Denarii, see Coinage
Denzic (Dengisichb 319, 434
Deogratias, bishop, 259
Derkos, ii. 319

Descriptio, {l)—foUis, 50; (2) excep-
tional tax, ii. 352
Deuterosis, ii, 366
Dhu Novas, ii. 323 sq.

Diadem, imperial, 10-11
Diampolis, 267
Digesta, see Law
Dimnos, ii. 323

Dioceses of the Empire, 25 sqq,
Diocletian, his reforms and organisa-
tion, 1, 6, 23, 25 ; palace at Salona,
78 ; frontier defence in the East, 96
Diocletiaiiopolis, ii. 310
Diogenes, commander in Rome, ii.

249 sqq. ; in Gentumeellae, 252
Diogenianus, 433
Dionysius Exigiius, 466
Dionysius the Areopagite, ii. 381
Diophantus, 217
Dioscorides, MS. of, 439
Dioscorides, island, ii. 320
Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria,
Z56 sqq.

Dioscorus, deacon, ii. 372
Dioscorus of Aphrodito,. ii. 430
1 Dioscuri, the, 373

INDEX

467

3)iploinafcic forms and etiquette, 92
sq, ; il 122 sq.

Diptunes, Tiberius Julius, Caesar, ii.
311

Diptyciis, consular, 137 ; of Stilicho;
ib. ; Constantius, 203 ; Felix, 240 ;
Asturius, 252 ; Olementinus, 429 ;
Anthemius, ib, ; Anastasius, ib, ;
Areobindus, ii. 6; Justinian, 19 ;
Justin, son of Germ anus, zE, 30;
Justinian, ib, ; Orestes, 159 ;
Anicius Faustiis Basilius, 348
Biscussores, ii. 350
Divine Right, theory of, 12
Divorce, law of, ii. 406 sqq. ; e^xamples
of contracts of, 407 n, 1
Bomestici (troops), 37
Bominus, Imperial title, 15
Domitian, monophysite, ii. 382
Domnicus, ii. 210

Bozmis divvna, in Africa, 52 ; under
Justinian, ii. 354 sq,

Donat ists, 247, 379 sqq. ; under
Vandals, 259

Donatives to army, 47, 50
Dorotheas, ii. 398
Dory, ii. 312
Boryphoroi, ii. 77
Dovin or Duin, ii. 3
Dowry, and donation, ii. 408
Draco, r., ii. 272
Dracontius, ii. 125
Drilo, r. (Drin), 269
Drinus, r. (Drina), 269
BruTigus, 38
Drusipara, 268
Dubios (Dovin), ii. 3, 109
Dubius, 199
Biicenarhis, 4.0
Bitces, ZQt sq,

Dudlebian Slavs, ii. 315
Dulcigno, 270
Dulcissiraus, ii. 19
Bupondii, ii. 398
Durostorum, 268
Bux Mogoiitiacensis, 118
Bzlx tractus Armoricanh 207
Dyrrhaehium, seized by Ostrogoths,
411 ; Theoderic at, 417 sqq. ;
reputation of inhabitants for
avarice, 446 ; Amalasuntha plans
to flee to, ii. 161 ; Beiisarius at,
235; tSclavcnes at, 297

Earthquakes, 154 ; ii. 117
Eedicius, 342

Eclii)ses, of moon, 137 ; ii. 319 ;
of sun, ib.

Edecon, 276, 279 sq., 280
Edessa (Syrian), taxation of, 441 ;
temple of, 368 ; seat of ISTestorian-
ism, 354; Kavad’s siege of, ii.

12 sq. ; pays ransom to Ghosroes,
98 ; refortilied by Justinian, 109 ;
Chosroes besieges, 110 sqq. ; legend
of Abgar, 109

Edessa (Vodena), 270, 271, 418
Edicts, Imperial, 12 sq ; of Praetorian
Prefects, 454 (cp. 445 ro 1, n. 2)
Edobich, 193

Education, in the hands of pagans,
374 ^

Egypt, diocese of, 27 ; Augustal
Prefect, tb. ; amount of money
taxes in, 53 ; changes in fifth
century, ii. 33S ; reorganisation in
sixth century, 348 ; number of
troops in, 358 ; see Alexandria,
Blemyes

Ela Atzbeha = Elesboas, ii. 323 sqq.
Eiaeus, ii. 309
Elephantine, ii. 371
Eleiisis, Goths at, 119 ; mysteries
of, 368, 370
Elis, Goths in, 120
Elisha Vartabed, ii. 7
Emancipation, ii. 402
Emesa, 94, 96
Emona, 167, 170

Emperors, method of election of, 5
sqq. ; co -regent, 6 sq. ; quasi-
divinity, 12, 15 ; legislative powers,
12 sqq. ; titles, 15 sq.

Emphyteusis, 60

Empire, Roman, unity of, 16 sqq. ;
divisions of, 2, 16 sqq. ; revenue
of, 53 ; population of, 53 ; super-
stitions as to duration of, 137 ;
view's as to its collapse in the West
discussed, 308 sqq.

Empresses, and female succession to
the throne, 9 sqq.

England, in legend of Beiisarius, ii. 69
ErSiypostasis, ii. 374
Ennodius, 427, 461 ; libellus pro
synodo, 465; panegyric on Theo-
derie, 466 ; death, ii. 158
Ephesus, see of, loses its rank, 358;
see Councils

Ephraim, Patriarch of Antioch, ii.
377, 383

Ephthalites, 397 ; ii. 5 sqq. ; alleged
, letter of Justinian to, 92 ; fall of
their power, 314
Epibole, 444 sq. ; ii. 350
Epidaurus (Ragiisa), ii. 174
Epinicus, Pr. Prel 394
Epiphania (city), 94, 06
Epiphaiiius, bishop of Constantia, 150
Epiphanius, bishop of Ticinura, 339,
343, 424, 427 sq.

i Epiiihanius, Patriarch of Constaii-
I tinople, ii. 377
I Era, of Armenia, ii. 89

468 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Ereriliva, 411

Ermanaric, son of Aspar, 317, 320,
398

Emas (Ernacli), 288, 434
Ery thrills, Pr. Pref., 400
Erzerum, see Theodosiopolis
Esimiphaios, ii. 325 sq.

Eskam, 281

Ethiopians, see Ahyssinians
Etruria, wasted by Visigoths, 185
Euehaita, 438

Eucherius, 106, 108, 170 ; death, 172
Euclid, 217

Eudaemon, Pref. of Constantinople,
ii. 39, 41

Eudocia, Empress (Athenais),
marriage, 220 ; children, ib. ; pil-
grimage to Jerusalem, 226 sq. ;
Hellenism, 227 sqq. ; friendship
with Cyrus, ib, ; discord with
Pulcheria, 229 ; accusation against,
229 sq. ; exile, 230 sq. ; coins,
220, 227, 231 ; theological opinions,
358 sq, ; death, 359 ; poem on
Persian War, ii. 4

Eudocia, d. of Valentinian III., 251,
256 ; forced to marry Palladius,
324 ; carried to Carthage and
married to Huneric, 325
Eudoxia, Empress, wdfe of Arcadius,
education, 108 ; marriage, 109 ;
crowned Augusta, 138 ; court, and
power of, ib. ; reception of Por-
phyrius of Gaza, 143 sqq. ; relations
with Chrysostom, 142 ; enmity and
reconciliation, 148 sq. ; second
rupture, 151, 153 ; reconciliation,
155 ; her statue in Augusteum,
155 ; third rupture wuth Chrysos-
tom, ib. ; death, 159 ; coins,
138

Eudoxia, Licinia, Einj)ress, birth, 220 ;
coins, ib. ; marriage, 225 ; forced
to marry Maximus, 324 ; supposed
appeal to Gaiseric, ib. ; captive at
• Carthage, 325 ; released, 333
Eudoxiopolis, 268
Eugenius, stewwd of Honoria, 289
Eugenius, duke of Euphratesia, 434
Eugraphia, 148
Eulalius, ii. 354
Eunapius, ii. 417
Eunes, ii. 170
Eunomians, 379 ; ii. 60
Eunuchs, 127 ; trade in, ii. 115
Euphemia, daughter of Marcian, 314
Euphemia, sister of Loo I., 321
Euphemia, Empress, ii. 19, 29
Euphemia, daughter of John Cappa-
docian, ii. 57

Euphemia, of Sura, ii. 95 I

Euphcmius, Praet. Pref., 470 I

Euphemius, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, 431, 436 sq.

Euphratesia, 434
Eupiutius, 203

Euric, king, accession, 337 ; An-
themius at ■war with, 339 ; con-
, quests in Gaul and Spain, 341 sqq . ;
embassy to Constantinople, 341 ;
ministers, 343 ; code, 344
Eusebius, poet, 135
Eusebius, bishop of Oyzicus, ii. 58
Eusebius, comes foed., ii. 69
Eustathius, historian, ii. 429
Eutharic, consul, 455 ; ii. 151 sq.^ 158
Euthymius, abbot, 359, 384
Eutropius, chamberlain, arranges
marriage of Arcadius, 108 sq. ; his
regime, 115 sqq., 126 sqq. ; cam-
paign against Huns, 126 ; consul,
127 ; fall, 130 sqq.

Eutyches, monophysite, 355
Eutychianus, Praet. Pref., 134
Eutychius, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, ii. 388, 390, 393
Evagrius, ascete, 350
Evermud, ii. 175
Mxactores, 49
Exarchs, of Africa, ii. 141
Bxceptores, 32

JSxcubitores, creation of, 317 ; ii. 17 sq.
Exports, prohibition of certain, ii. 355
Exfositio totius mimdi, ii, 316
Exuperantius, 206
Exuperius, bishop, 187

Fabriano, ii. 264, 289 sqq.

Factories of arms, 115
Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, ii.
385 sq.

Faenza , see T a vcn tia
Faesulae, 168 ; ii. 207 sqq.

Fanum Fortiinae, il 195 sq., 278
Faustus, Anicius Acilius Giabrio, 233 ;

Prefect of Borne (a.d. 425), 223
Faustus, bishop, 342
Faustus, historian, 96
Faustus, Flavius Probiis, consul
(A.D. 490), 424, 453, 464 ; Pref.
of Borne, 466

Faventia, 423 ; battle of, ii. 230

Federates, see Foederati

Feletheus, 411

Felix II., Pope, 404

Felix III., Pope, 436 -sm

Felix IV., Pope, ii. 157

Fehx, mag. utr. mil., 240 ; consul, ib. ;

fall and death, 243
Felix, African poet, ii. 125
Fermo, see Firmiim
Festus, Flavius, senaius, 424,

453,464

INDEX

469

Fiesole, see Faesulae
Finance, 45 sqq. ; reserve in treasury
on Marcian’s death, 236, 337 ; cost
of Leo’s Vandalic expedition, ib . ;
reserve on death of iVnastasius, 446 ;
ii. 36 ; expenditure on St. Sophia,
ii. 52 sq. ; finances under Justinian,
348 sqq. ; estimates of State revenue,
i. 53 ; ii. 353 ; reduction of revenue
under Valentinian III., i. 253
Fire, Greek, 452
Fire-brigade, 322
Fires, see Constantinople
Fireships, 338
Firmieus Maternus, 367
Firmum, ii. 195 ; Belisarius holds
military coimcil at, 197, 202 ;
taken by Totila, 235
Firmus, Moor, 121
Flaccilla, Aelia, Empress, 107
Flaceilia, daughter of Arcadius, 131,
154

Flaccilla, daughter of Theodosius II.,
220

Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople,

. 355 sq,

Flavian, Patriarch of Antioch, 440,
448

Florence, Radagaisus at, 168 ; Justin
in, ii. 227 ; Totila attacks, 230 ;
surrenders to Narses, 275
Florentinus, poet, ii. 125
Florentiiis, Praet. Pref. of East, 233
Florus, duke of Thebaid, 237 sq,
Foederati (foreign troops under
special command), 447 sq. ; ii.
76 sq., 127

Foederati, federate peoples, 42, 98 ;
federate troops, 43 ; federate states
within the Empire, 206
Follis (tax), 50, 237, 446 sq.

Fonteius, bishop, 342
Forgery, ii. 337
Forum Cornelii, ii. 201
Forum Sempronii, ii. 195
F ossato, ii. 291
Franc isca, ii. 207, 280
Franks, on the Euxine in the third
century, 44 ; on Rhine, Stilicho
pacifies, 119

Ripuarians, territory, 99 ; defend
Rhine for Rome, 186; dealings
of Actius with, 243 ; relations
with Attila, 291 ; help Empire
against Huns, 292
Saiians, territory, 99 ; exxiansion,
242 sq., 346 sq. ; ii. 161 ; division
of Merovingian kingdom, 171 ;
negotiations'" with Witigis, 179 ;
invade Italy, 207 ; equipment,
ib. 280 ; propose to divide Italy
with Ostrogoths, 210

Fravitta, 135
Fredbal, 203
Frederic (Visigoth), 333
Frexi, ii. 141
Frisians, 99

Frumentius, bishop, ii. 322
Funeral customs, 141
Furlo, see Petra Pertusa

Gabbula, ii. 86

Gaian, Patriarch of Alexandria, ii. 377
Gainas, his soldiers slay Rufinus,
112 sq. ; relations with Stilicho,
112, 125 ; maq. mil, 127 ; over-
throws Eutropius, 130 ; rebellion,
132 sqq. ; death, 135
Gaiseric, accession, 244 ; character,
246 ; leaves Spain, ib. ; campaign
against Suevians, ib. ; plunders the
Mauretanians, 247 ; takes Hippo,

247 sq. ; defeats Imperial armies,

248 ; makes peace (435), 249;
takes Carthage, 254; invades Sicily,
ib. ; makes peace (442), 255 ; quarrels
with Visigothic king, 256; auto-
cracy, 258 ; settlement of the suc-
cession, ib. ; anti-Catholic policy,
259 ; expels provincial senators,
ib. ; negotiations with Attila, 291 ;
sacks Rome, 324 sq. ; defeated” at
sea, 327 ; treaty with Majorian, 331 ;
restores Eudoxia and Piacidia, 333 ;
conquest of Sardinia and Corsica,
334 ; defeats ex]3edition of Leo I.,
335 sq. ; coinage, 258

Gains, jurist, ii. 397, 398

Galla, wife of Theodosius I., 198

Galla Piacidia, Piacidia

Gallaecia, 203, 208

Gallioa, battle of, ii. 147

Gallienus, Emperor, military reforms, 36

Gambling, ii 415

e ames, Panhellenic, 370
audentius, father of Aetiiis, 241
Gaudentius, son of Aetius, 251, 325
Gaul, devastated by I'andals and
others, 186 ; under Constantine

III., 189 ; reorganisation by Con-
stantins, 206 sqq. ; Hun invasion,
291 sqq. ; alienation from Italy,
336, 337 sq. ; extension of German
rule after A. D. 400, 341 sq. ; end of
Imperial |)ower in, 346 sq. ; life of
Gallic pro'vdncials, 341 sqq.

Gauts, ii. 301
Gaza, 142, 147, 371
Gelasius, Pope, 432, 453
Gelimer, king, accession, ii. 126;
military mistakes, 128 ; strategic
plan, 131 sq. ; defeated, 135, 136 ;
captured, 138 ; silver basin of, 137 ;

.. coins,. 1 26

470 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Geneva, 341

Gennadius, Patriarch of ' Constanti-
nople, 403
Genoa, ii. 203

Gmiiles, (African) ii 140
George, the Cyprian, ii. 343
Georgia, see Iberia

Gepids, 100 ; under Huns, 277, 291 ;
revolt, 296 ; in Dacia, ib. ; treaty
with Marcian, 297 ; relations with
Lombards and the Empire in reign
of Justinian, ii. 298 sqq,

Germae, ii. 56
Germania superior, 200
Germania, in Illyricum, ii. 56
Germans, their “ penetration ” of the
Empire, 98 sq. ; in the army, 38, |
99 ; West Germans, 96 ; East
Germans, 96 sqq. ; German peoples,
geographical distribution of, in
A.i>. 3fe, 99 sq. ; in a.d. 454, 296
sq. ; numbers of, 100, 104 sq., 309 ;
Sidonius Apollinaris on German
language, 344

Germanus, nephew^ of Justin I., ii. 19 ;
disagreement with Justinian, 67 ;
suspected of treason, 68 ; at
Antioch, 96 ; 7nag. mil. in Africa,
144 sq. ; appointed commander-in-
chief in Italy, 253 ; collects an
army, ib. ; .probable heir to throne,
ib. ; marries Matasuntha, 254 ;
death, ib. ; defeats Slavs, 298
Germanus (postumus), son of preced-
ing, ii. 19, 255

Germanus, commander in Thracian
Chersonese, ii. 306

Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, 201,
250

Germanus, general of Theodosius II.,

, ';:255'-

Gerontius, commander at Thermo-
pylae, 119

Gerontius, rebel general in Spain, 191-
193

Getae, identified with Goths, ii. 223

Ghassanids, 95 ; ii 91

Gibal, ii 259

Gibamund, ii 132

Gilak, ii. 246

Gildas, 201

Gildo, revolt of, 121 - 125 ; patrL
monmni Gild. 125
Gladiatorial show^s abolished, 164
Gloriosi, gloriosissimi, title, 33
Glycerins, Emperor, 404 sq.

Goar (Alan king), 186, 194, 198, 250
Godegisel, 186

Gold, export to the East, 54; see
Coinage, and Silver
Gothic language, Ivngiia franca in
central Eurbx^e, 279

Goths, migrations of, 97 ; see Ostro-
goths, Visigoths

Goths of Crimea, ii. 312; see also
Tetraxites

Gracchus, Pref. of Home, 368
Grade, ii. 286
Graeeus, bishop, 342
Grasse, ii 131
Gratian, tyrant, 188
Gratian, Emperor, 368
Gratiana (in Moesia), ii. 162
Greece, suppression of paganism in,
369 sq.

Greek fire, 449

Greek language, at Constantinople,
232 ; official use of, 228 ; ii. 346,
399 ; literary, and popular, Greek,
434 sqq.

Gregentius, ii. 327, 413
Gregory I., Pope (the Great), ii. 224
Gregory of Nazianzus, on divorce, ii.
406

Grod, king, ii 311
Gruthungi, 129

Gubazes, king, ii, 100 sq., 113 sqq . ;
murder of, 118

Gudeliva, wife of Theodahad, ii 167,
168, 173
Gudilas, ii 248
Gudrun, 296

Gxuidahar, Burgundian king, 194,
200,249

Gunderic, Vandal king, 192, 203,
204 ; war with Suevians, 208 ;
death, 244, 258
Gundioc, 340

Gundobad, 340, 344 ; mag. mil, 404 ;
Burgundian king, 405 ; invades
Italy, 424 ; releases Italian captives,
427 ; relations wdth Anastasias,
463

Giintarith, ii. 146

Gunthamund, Vandal king, coins,
258 ; invades Sicily, ii. 124 ; perse-
cutes, 125
Gurgan, ii. 5
Gurgenes, ii. 80

Hadrianople, battle of (a.d. 378), 41,
97, 104, 311 ; capital of Haemi-
montus, 268 ; Selavenes at, ii.
298 ; refortified, 308
Hadrianus, Rufus Synesins, 165
Hadrumetum, ii. 130
Harith (Gbassanid), 434 ; ii. 86 sq. ;

invades Assyria, 103
Harith, south Arabian emir, ii. 324
Helenopontus, province, reconsti-
tuted, ii. 341
Heliocrates, 335
Helion, mag. off, 224
Heliopolis, ii. 372

INDEX

471

Hellebich, 191

Hellen — -p&g&rif 283, 287 ; ii. 367

Helleniana, 354

Helviilum, ii. 288, 290

Henotikon, of Zeno, 402 sqq., 436 sqq. ;

in Armenia, ii. 88
Hephaestus, ii. 358
Hcraclea (Eregli), 112, 268, 338; ii.
309

Heraclea (Monastir), 270, 417
Heraclian, comes Africae, 172 ; loyal
to Honorius, ISl sq. ; revolt and
death, 195 sq.

Heraclius, eunuch of Valentinian III.,

299 sq.

Heraclius, general of Leo I., 337
Herciiianiis, FI. Bassus, 289, 294
Hermanfrid, Thuringian king, 461
Hermanric, ii. 295
Hermeric, Suevian king, 208
Hermiane, ii. 131

Hermogenes, mag. of/., ii. 81, 82, 87
Herodotus, ii. 429

Heruls, habitation in fourth century,
100 ; numbers of, 105 ; under Huns,
291 ; revolt, 296, 297 ; in Odova-
car’s service, 425 ; settlements of,
in Illyrian j^rovinces, 436 ; king of,
adopted son of Theoderic, 461 ; in
Justinian’s service, in the East, ii.
86, 107, etc. ; accoutrements, 108 ;
at battle of Capua, 279 (frequently
mentioned as auxiliaries in chaps.
xvi.-xix.) ; rule over the Lom-
bards, 299 ; break-up of the nation,

300 ; subsequent fortunes, 300 sq.
Hierapolis, 94 ; ii. 82 ; Buzes at, 95 ;

Chosroes at, 96
Hierocles, Platonist, 376
Hieroeles, Synecdemus, ii. 341
Hieron, custom-house of, ii. 355
Hiorotheus, ii. 381
Hilarion, 383

Hilary, l3ishop of Aries, 364
Hilderic, king, ii. 125 sq., 131, 158
Himerius, 374

Himyarites, relations witli Abyssinia
and with Roman Empire, ii. 322-
327 ; leges Homeritarum, 413
Hippo Begins, 247 sq,, 249 ; ii. 137
Hippodrome, factions of, 84 sqq.,2^^% ;
in reign of Justin, ii. 11 sqq. ; the
“ Partisans,” 12 ; in reign of
Justinian, 39 sqq. ; scene between
Greens and Justinian, 71 sqq. ;
■prasino-'ve7ietoi, 41
Hira, 95 ; ii. 91 sq,

Hispalis, 244 ; ii. 287
Hiimg-nu, 101, 273
Homer, MS. of, destroyed, 394
Hoineritcs, see Himyarites
Honoratu 207

Honoratus, 364, 385
Honoria, Justa Grata, birth, 209 ;
Augusta, 224, 262 ; character, 288
sq. ; intrigue with Eugenius, 289 ;
appeal to Attila, 200 ; 294; coins, 289
Honoriani (federate troops), 191
Honorius, Emperor, reign of, chaps.
V. and vi. ; birth, 106 ; 3rd
Consulate, 119 ; 4th Consulate, 121;
first marriage, 125 ; moves court
to Bavenna, 163 ; 6th Consulate,
ib. ; triumph, 2’6. ; at Borne, 163 55'. ;
second marriage, 170 ; at Bononia,
171 ; at Ticinum, ib. ; co-opts
Constantius, 209 ; quarrel with
Placidia, 210 ; death, ib. ; con-
temporary view of his reign, 211 ;
sarcophagus, 263
“ Hordes,” nomadic, 102
Hormisdas, Pope, corres|)ondence with
Anastasius, 450, 466 ; death, ii.
153 ; negotiations with Justin, 372
Horoscopes, 398
Horreum Margi, 268, 460
Hosqntalitas, 206
Humiles, and honestl, ii. 413 sq.
Huneric, Vandal king, hostage in
Italy, 249 ; first marriage, 256 ;
betrothed to Eudoeia, ib. ; perse-
cutes Catholics, ii.. 125
Huns, invasion of Europe, and char-
acter of, 101 sqq. ; in Pannonia,
166 ; employed by Stilicho, 169;
defeat Burgundians, 249 ; under
Bugila and Attila, 271 sqq. ; German
influence on, 278 ; dissolution of
tbeir empire, 296 ; its historical
importance, 297 sq . ; see Sabeiroi ;
Ephthalites = W.hite Huns
Huns of the Crimea, ii. 80
Hyacinthus, 290
Hydatius, 203
Hydmntum, see Otranto
Hypaepa, 356

H3rparchs (prefects of camps), 471
Hypaspistai, ii. 77
Hypatia, 128, 217 sqq.

Hypatius, abbot, 386
Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus, ii. 162,
375, 381

Hypatius, mag. mil. in Thrace, 448 sq.
Hypatius, nephew^ of Anastasius,
campaign against Vitalian, 449 sq.,
452 ; mag. mil. praes., ii. 12 sqq. ;
proclaimed Emperor, 44 sqq. ; death,
4n I mag. mil. Or., 81
Hypostasis, theological term, 352

labdas, ii. 141, 143, 145
Ibas of Edessa, ii. 384, 389, 390
Iberia (Georgia), ii. 80
lidibad, ii. 213, 228

m HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Ildico, 296

Ikliger, marries da-ugliter of Antonina,
ii. 56 ; in Armenia, 107 ; in Africa,
144 ; in Italy, 195 sq. ; assists in
relief of Rimini, 198 sq.

Ilerda, 256
liion, 367

Ilhis, 390 ; hostility to Yerina, 394 ;
defeats the rebellion of Marcian,
395; attempt on Ms life, 396 ;
mag, mil. Or.^ ib. ; rebellion of, ib.
sqq. ; relations with pagans, 397,
399 ; beheaded, 398
IlkistreSf 19 sqq.

Illyricum, Prefecture, distinguished
from diocese of, 27 ; recruiting ground
for the army, ill ; western frontier
of the Prefecture, 110; Stilicho’s
designs on, 111, 120, 162, 169, 171 ;
part of diocese transferred to, 225
Illyricum, ecclesiastical vicariate of,
64 ; ii. 363 sq.

Immortals, Persian corps, ii. 83
ImoJa, see Forum Cornelii
Incarnation, controversies on the,
350 sqq.

Incense, 372
Incest, ii. 411
Incubation, 373

Indacus, brigand, 319, 389, 398
India, trade with, ii. 317 sqq. ; misuse
of the name, 318, n. 2 ; Inner and
Outer, 320 ; churches in, ib.
Indictions, cycle of, 47 ; an official
mode of dating, ii. 348
Indulf, ii. 259
Ingenius, 197

Inheritance, laws of, ii. 404 sqq.
Innocent I., Pope, 158 ; consents to
pagan rites, 176 ; goes as delegate
to Ravenna, 178, 179
Innocent, a general of Justinian, ii. 236
“ Inquisitors,” the term, 378
• Interamniiim, ii. 24.7
Into rci sa, ii. 196

Interest, rates of, 55 ; ii. 357, 409
Ireland, Mall, High King of, 188
Irene, niece of Anastasius I,, 339
Iron, in iVbyssinia, ii. 322
Isaac, founds monastic house at
Constantinople, 384
Isaac, Armenian, ii. 235, 240
Isauria, province of, 37
Isaurians, devastations of, in Asia
Minor, 157, 159; policy of Leo I.
towards, 317 sq. ; ascendancy of,
under Zeno, 388 sq., 400 ; reaction
agaiiiKst, under Anastasius, 432 sqq. ;
colonies in Thrace, 433 ; in the
armies of Justinian, chaps, sviii.,
xix., qmssini; Isaiirian troops
betray Rome tvdee, ii. 242, 250

Isdigunas, ii. 118, 121
Isidore, philosoj)her, 217
Isidoi’e, architect, ii. 49
Isis, cult of, 374; ii. 371
Isochristoi, ii. 383
Isonzo, r., battle of, 422 sq.

Isthmus of Corinth, fortified, ii. 310
Istria, 167

Italies, the, vicarii of, 27
Italy, land settlements in, of Odova-
car, 409 sq. ; of Theoderic, 453 ;
Justinian’s organisation of, ii 281
sqq.

Ivory, trade in, ii. 318

Jacob of Sarug, ii. 323, 381
Jacob Baradaeus, ii. 391
Jacobite sect, ii 391
Jacobus, 106

Jader, 269

Jerome, St., on Hunnic invasion of
Syria, 114 ; on Alaric’s capture of
Rome, 308

Jerusalem, life at, in fifth century,
227 ; monophysitism in, 358, see
Patriarchates

Jews, at Alexandria, 216, 219 ; in
Italy under Theoderic, 459; i)ro-
Gothie, ii 175 ; treachery in
Mesopotamia, ii. 13 ; Judaism in
Yemen, ii 322 sqq.

Jews, Imperial policy towards, 381 ;
ii 366

Joannina, ii 27, 56
Johannites, 157, 159
John I., Pope, ii 153, 156 .5g.

John I., Chrysostom, see Chrysostom
John IL, Patriarch of Constantinople,
ii 17, 372

John I., Patriarch of Antioch, 353
John the Armenian, general, ii 115 ;

death, 116 ; in Africa, 130, 132 sqq.
John Ascognaghes, ii. 374
Jolm the Cappadocian, Praet. Prei,
career and first Prefecture, ii, 36
sqq,; deposed, 41 ; second Pre-
fecture, 55 ; fall, 56 5^^. ; advises
against Vandalic expedition, 126 ;
supplies bad bread to the army,
129 ; reforms during second Pre-
fecture, 334 ; consulship, 347 ;
paganism of, 369 ; ignorance of
Latin, 399.

John, the nephew of Yitalian, general,
arrives in Italy, ii 188 ; sent to
Picenum, 193 ; seizes Rimini, e6. ;
ordered to withdi'aw from it, 195 ;
refuses, 196 ; besieged, 197 ; re-
lieved, 198 sq. ; sent to the Aemilia
and takes Imola, 201 ; illness, 204 ;
at Tortona, 207 ; iii Liguria, 210;
defeated at Mugeilo, 231 ; com-

INDEX 473

mands in Rome, 231, 234 ; goes to
Constantiimple and marries Justina,
235 ; successes in south Italy, 239 ;
his fear of Antonina, i6. ; at
Tarentum, 244 ; besieges Acher-
ontia, 246; garrisons Rossano,
247; in Picenum, 248; mag. mil.
lUyr., 255 ; awaits Narses at
Saiona, 256 ; sends ships to Italy,
259 ; marches to Italy with Narses,
262 ; at battle of Busta Gallorum,
264 ; in Etruria, 272 ; advises
moderation towards the Ostrogoths,
274 ; on the Po, 276 ; at Faventia,
277 ; perhaps sup|)lied information
to Procojhus, 429
John, duke of Mesopotamia, ii, 92
John of Ephesus, ii. 61, 363 ; perse-
cutes pagans, 368, 371
John of Gaza, ii. 431
John the Hunchback, 433
John Lydus, ii. 39, 41, 55
John, mag. mil. in fraes. (a.d. 514),

, 448, ■

Jolni Malalas, ii. 435
John Maxentius, ii. 376
John Maxilloplumacius, ii. 37
John the Papiiiagonian, coin. s. larg.,
447

John Phagas, ii. 104, 264, 298
John Philoponus, ii. 374
John, primicer. not., tyrant in Italy,
221 sqq.

John, primicer. not, (perhaps same
as preceding), 176
John Psaltes, ii. 324
John Rogathinus, ii, 148
John the Scythian, mag, mil. Or., 396,
398, 420, 433
John Talaias, 396, 404
John, bishop of Telia, ii. 377
John Troglita, ii. 147, 260
John, tribune of Excubitors, ii, 17
John Tzibus, ii. 101, 102, 426
John, son of Nicetas, ii. 83
John, son of Rufinus, ii. 98
John, son of Sisinniolus, ii. 146
Jolm, said to bo son of Theodora, ii. 27
John, son of Valeriana, 450
John, friend of Empress Eudoxia,
133, 138

Jordanes, ii. 223 ; date and purpose
of the Geiica, 255
Jotaba, island, ii. 8
Jovian, Emperor, 93
Jovinus, tyrant, 194 sq.

Jovius, minister of Honorius, 169,
178 sq., 181 sq.

Juguni, iagatio, 47

Julian, Emperor, fmaiicial measures
in Gaul, 48, 76 ; restoration of
paganism, 367

Julian, son of Constantine HI., 190,
193

Julian, Prefect of Constantinople,
430,432

Julian, mag. mil., 435
Julian, mag. lyiemoriae, 449
Julian, Imperial secretary, ii. 97, 98
Julian, envoy to Abyssinia, ii. 325
Julian, missionary to the Nobadae,
ii. 328 sq.

JuHan, Samaritan tyrant, ii. 365
Julian of Halicarnassus, ii. 373, 375
Juliana Anicia, daughter of Oiybrius,
339, 415, 439 ; ii, 255
Julius Nepos, see Nepos
Justin I., Emperor, helps to suppress
Vitalian, 451; takes imrt in
Persian War, ii. 12; comes Ex-
cuhiiornm, 16 ; election, and reign,
of, 17 sqq.

Justin II., Emperor, son of Vigilantia,
ii. 19, 70 sq.

Justin, son of Germanus, ii. 19, 67,
70 sq. ; in Colchis, 119, 315 sq. ;
recruits soldiers for Italy, 253, 298
Justin, mag. mil. lllyr., ii. 197, 203 ;
sent to besiege Faesulae, 207 ;
commander in Florence, 227, 231 ;
joins army of Narses, 263
Justina, daughter of Germanus, ii, 70,
235

Justinian I., Emperor, official style
in laws, inscriptions, etc., 16 ; his
column, 75 ; house of, 80 ; parent-
age, ii. 19 ; com. clomest, 21 ; mag.
mil. and Patrician, ib, ; nobilis-
simus, ib, ; political power, ib. ;
relations wdth Blue faction, 21 sq. ;
ilhiess, 22 ; co-opted, 23 ; succeeds
Justin, ib.i portraits, 23 sq. ;
habits, character, and i)oIicy, 24
sqq. ; marries Theodora (q.v.), 29;
absolutism, 27 ; latitude allowed
to Theodora, 34 ; throne en-
dangered by ISiika revolt, 39 sqq. ;
arehiteetural works, 49 sqq. ; ill
of the Plague, 65 ; conspiracies
against, 66 sqq. views as to the
succession to the throne, 69 sqq.;
death, 71 ; fortification of towns
in eastern provinces, 90 ; anibiticms
of conquest, 91, 124 ; friendship
with Hiideric, 125 sq. ; assumes
title, Fmnc'ic 208 ; Alamannicus,
257 ; diplomatic activities, 292 sq. ;
reforms in j)i^ovincial administra-
tion, 33S sqq. ; antiquarlanism, 346 ;
economies, 357 sq. ; inefiicieucy in
last years, 359 ; ecclesiastical policy,
360 sqq. ; Edict against Origoiust
doctrines, 383 ; Edict of Three
Chapters, 384; second Edict, 387;

474 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

extant writings, 392 ; aphtharto- ]
docetio Edict, 393 ; aims and results
of eculesiastical policy, 392 sq. ; \
legislative work, chap, xxiii. ; the
attitude ‘of Procopius to, 420 sqq.;
coins, ii. 24, 357

Justinian, son of Germanus, ii. 19,
70, 253, 255

Justiniana Prima, ii. 309 ; see Scupi
Justiniana Secimda, ii. 309; see
Uipiana

Justus, nephew of Justin I., ii. 19,
47,70; ill Armenia, 107
Juvavum, 167

Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem,
358 sq,

Kais, Arab chief, ii. 325 sq,

Jiam, Hunnic drink, 281
Kavad, king, ii. 8 sqq,; war with
Anastasius, 10 sqq. ; war with
Justin, 79 sq. ; death, 88
Kavad, nephew of Chosroes, ii. 262
Kidarites, ii. 7
Kitharizon, ii. 107
Kopaonik, 269
Koran, verses of, ii. 324, 326
Kotrigurs, 435 ; invasions of, ii. 256,
<^02 sq., ^04: sqq.

Kreka, 285
Kushans, ii. 5

Laeti, 40, 98
Lallis, 318
Lambaesis, ii. 149
Lambiridi, ii. 149
Larnpadius, 180 (cp. 170)

Land, system, -taxation, etc., 411 sqq . ;
method of dealing with sterile
lands, 444 sq. ; ii. 350 ; law of real
property, 403 sq.

Langobardi, see. Lombards
Lari bus, ii. 149
■/■Larissa, 421"'.' ■

Laierculmn ynains, 2^

Latin, use of, in Balkan jieninsula, 271

(cp.283)

Lalini luniani, ii. 400
Laurae, 383

Laurentius, rival Pope to Symmaohus,
464 sq.

Lauriaoum, 1G6 6'^.

Law, Imperial Laws {leges, con-
stit'utiones, etc.), 12, 454 ; codifica-
tion of Theodosius II., 2Z2 sqq.;
Justinian’s Code, ii. 395 sqq.;
Digest, 396 sq. ; Institutions, 398 ;
Novels, 399 ; civil law, 400 sqq, ;
criminal law, 409 sqq.

Law, Germanic codes, 344

Law of Citations, ii. 397

Lawyers, conservative influence of, 4

Lazica, ii. 80, 88 ; products of, 100,
317 ; relations with the Empire, ib. ;
invaded bv Persians, 101 sq, ; w'ar
of AD. 549-557, 113 sqq.

Leinsa, ii- 149

Leo I., Emperor, election and corona-
tion, 315 ; averts German danger,
316 sqq. ; dealings with Aspar,
318 sqq. ; character, 321 : great
fire at Constantinople, 322 ; death,
323 ; coins, ib., 370; called “the
Great,” ib. ; co-oi)ts Majorian,
329; embassies to Gaiseric, 333,
334 ; co-opts Anthemius, 335 ;
expedition against Vandals, 335
sqq. ; sends Olybrius to Italy, 339 ;
church policy, 402 ; negotiations
with Persia, ii. 7 ; the affair of
Jotaba, 8

Leo II., Emperor, co-opted, 323 ;
death, 389

Leo I., Pope, envoy to Attila, 295;
Dogmatic Epistle of, 355 sqq. ;
conflict with Hilary of Arles, 363 ;
advances power of Roman see, 364
Leo, magTi miZ. under Arcadius, 129 sq.
Leo, Visigothic minister, 343, 344
Leontia, daughter of Leo I., 317, 319,
395

Leontius, philosopher, 220
Leontius, bishop of Arles, 342
Leontius, tyrant, 396, 397, 398
Leontius of Byzantium, ii. S7 3 sqq.
Leontius, Scythian monk, ii. 375
Leontius, Origenist, ii. 375
Leptis, ii. 140
Lerins, 364, 385

Lethe, castle of ( = Giligerda), ii. 9
Leuderis, ii. 178
Leutharis, ii. 275, 277 sq.

Lex Aelia Sentia, ii. 401
Lex Fnfia Caninia, ii. 401
Lex lulia et Papia Poppaea, ii. 403
Libanius, 107, 372
Liberatus, Breinarium, ii. 390
Lxberius, Marcellinus Felix, beginning
of his career, 409; Praet. Pref. of
Gaul, 456 ; sent by Theodahad as
envoy to Justinian, ii. 164 ; career
oi, ib,, n. 1 ; appointed to command
in Italy, 252 ; sent to Sicily, 253 ;
superseded, ib. ; in Sicily, 255 ;
in Spain, 287 ; augustai Prefect,
380

Libraries, at Constantinople, 77, 394 ;
at Alexandria, 368

Liguria, 162 ; devastated by Bur-
gundians, 427, 428; situation in
; A.D. 538, ii. 200, 202; partly
under the Franks, 257
Lilybaeum, 255, 410, 425, 461 ; ii,
162

INDEX 475

Limenius, 171

Limitami, 35, 98 ; ii. 358 ; see Army

Linginines, 4^3

Lipara, 199 ; ii. 236

Lissus, 270

Litorius, 249 sq.

Litus 8axomcu7n, 200
Li via, Fort, 343

“Logos, controversies on the, 350 sq,
Loqothetai { = scriniarii), 443 ; ii. 40,
358

Lombards, Ostrogothic appeal to, ii.
205 ; take part in Italian expedi-
tion of Narses, 261, 264, 270 ;
migrations of, 299 ; defeat the
Heruls, 300 ; wars with Gepids,
301 sqq,

Longinianus, 171

Longinus, brother of Zeno, imprisoned
by Basiliscus, 393, 396 ; consul,
400 ; character, 401 ; exiled, 432
Longinus of Kardala, mag. off., 400,
433

Longinus of Selinus, 433
Louata, ii. 141, 145
Lucania, conc|uered by Totila, ii. 231 ;
recovered by J ohn, 243 ; roads
from, into Briittii, 247 ; plundered
by Alainanni, 275
Lucca, ii. 275 sqq.

Lucian, com. Or., 109
Lugdunensis, provinces of, 207 ;
Lugdunensis prima, under Bur-
gundians, 332, 341 ; Lugdunensis
tei*tia, 341
Luna, ii. 275

Lupicina, see Euphemia, Empress

Lupxis, bishop, 342

Lusitania, 203

Lusoriae, 213, 250

Luxorius, ii. 125

Luxury, at Constantinople, 139

Lychnidus, 270, 417

Lvcia, province, T)enalised by Rufinus,

■■ 117 ^ ■

Lyons, river at Constantinople, 68, 235
Lydia, ii. 37
L>ons, 330, 427

Maadites, ii. 325

Macedonia, diocese, provinces and
to%vns of, 271

Macedoniiis, Patriarch of Constanti-
noi)le, 437 sq.

Macro bins, ii.-409
Madaura, ii. 149
Magians {see Persia), 92 ; li. 107
M agister offidorum, functions of, 29
sqq., 92 : ii. 355
M agister census. 50
Magister a Uhellis, 315 ; see magistri
scriniorum

Magistri militum, 35 sqq. ,* in prae-
senti, 36 ; utriusqm militiae, 36
in the west : (a.i>. 395-408) sub-
ordinate mag. cqidt., 106 ; co-
ordinate magistri after Stilicho’s
death, 178, 209 ; subordinate
mag. utr, mil. under Valentinian
III., 252

in Gaul : wag. eqiiit, 242 ; ynag.
iitr. mil., 253

in Africa : mag. mil., 121 ; under
Justinian, ii. 140 sq.
in Dalmatia, 333
in Armenia, ii. 80
in Si3ain, ii. 287

arpariqyol avroKparope^, ii. 119, 127
Magistri scriniorum {memoriae, libel-
lonim, epistulariim), 29 sq.
Magistriatii, 31
Magusaeans, ii. 4
Maiestas, see Treason
Mail, coats of, ii. 78
Mainz, Vandals, etc., cross Rhine at,
185 ; plundered, 187 ; Jovinus at,
194

Maiumas, feast of, 437
Majorian, Emperor, fights against
Franks, 321 ; raised to throne, 329 ;
in Gaul, 330 sq. ; naval expedition,
331 ; legislation, ib. ; death, 332 ;
coins, ib.

Mala = Malabar, ii. 320
Malamoeco, ii. 285

Malchus, 321, 390 ; some fragments
assigned to him probably belong to
Candidus, 392, 393 : ii. 417
Mamma, battle of, ii. 143
Mancipii, in causa, ii. 402 ; res
mancipi, 403
Mandyes, 28
Manes, 377 53'.

Manicheans, 377 sq. ; ii. 364 sq.

Manumission, ii. 401

Manus, ii. 403

Maras, ii. 363

Marbles, ii. 51

Marcellae, 267

Marcellinus, commander in Dalmatia,
333 sqq.

Marcellinus, tribun. et not., 380
Marcellinus, chronicler, ii, 39
Mareellus, nephew of Justinian, ii. 19
Marcellus, abbot of Akoimetoi, 319,
385

Marcellus, commander of Palace
guards, ii. 57, 67 sq.

Marcellus, officer under Belisarius, ii.
83

Marcellus, banker, ii. 08
Marcian, Emperor, reign, 236 sqq.;
coronation, 236 ; reign a golden
age, 236 ; treaty with Blemyes, 238 ;

475 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

embassy to Gaiseric, 327 ; ecclesi-
astical policy, 356 sqq. ; laws againsc
heretics, 379; coins, 236, 329 ;
pillar of, 75 ; acknowledges Avitus
326 ; refuses tribute to Attila, 290 ; i
sends troops to Italy against Huns, ,
295 ; policy towards German i
peoples after fall of Hun empire, I
297 SQ'., 411 ; postumous reputa- |
tion, 432; policy towards Persia,
ii. 7

Marcian, son of Emperor Anthemius,
317 ; revolts against Zeno, 395
Marcian ( = Justin, son of Gennanus ?),
it. 19, 148

Marcianopolis, 267, 275
Marcus, tyrant in Britain, 187
Marcus, son of Basiliscus, Augustus,
391 ; death, 393 ; coins, ih.

Marde, 94

Margus, 267, 271, 274
Maria, wife of Honorius, 125, 137, 170
Maria, wife of Hypatius, ii. 44
Marina, daughter of Arcadius, 131, 214
Marinus, Pr. Pref., 434, 439 ; financial
reforms, 443; date of prefecture,
470; ii. 20

Marinus, philosopher, ii. 469
Mamas, cult of, 142
Marriage, between Homans and bar-
barians, 3 ; of clergy, 387 ; customs,
141 ; Chrysostom on, 140 ; modes
of contracting, ii. 402 sq, ; see
Divorce
Marsa, 148

Marseilles, attacked by Athaulf, 196 ;

ecclesiastical position of, 363
Marsus, 396

Martin of Tours, 371, 382 ; monas-
tery of, ii. 222

Martin, general, in Mesopotamia, ii.
103 ; mag. mil Or.^ 107 sg., Ill sq . ;
concerned in murder of Gubazes,
118 sq. ; victory at Phasis, 119 ;
in Africa, 143 ; sent to Italy, 186
sq. ; march to Ariminum, 195 sq,,
198 sq. ; sent to Liguria, 210
Martinianus, 414

Martyropolis, 94 ; surrender to Kavad,
ii. 11 ; capital of Fourth Armenia,
91

Martyrology (legends of saints, e.tc.)j
372 sq,

Marutlias, bishop, ii. 2
Marzbans, ii. 7, 89
Mascezel, 122 sq,

Mascuia, ii. 149
Massilia, see Marseilles
Master of Offices, see M agister

officionim

Masters of Soldiers, see Magistri
7mUiiim

I Mastigas, ii. 141
[ Masuna, ii 141

I Matasuntha, marries Witigis, ii. 179 ;
coins of, ib., 254 ; proposes to
betray Ravenna, 193 sq. ; 210 ;
marries Germanus, 254
Mattiarii, legions, 315
Mauretanian provinces, 37 ; A%idals
in, 247, 249 ; restored to Empire,
255 ; reconquered, 258, 332, 333
I Maurianus, wizard, 402
Maurica, battle of, 293
Maurice, son of Mundus, ii. 174
Maurice (pseudo-), Slraiegihon, ii. 75
Maxima Sequanomm, 341
Maximian, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, 355

Maximian, steward of Aetius, 323
Maximianopolis, ii. 309
Maximin, Arian bishop, 254
Maximin, envoy to Attila, 276, 279
sqq,; mag. 7nil., 238
Maximin, Praet. Pref. of Italy, ii. 231
Maximin, senator, ii. 210
Maximus, Petronius, Emperor, 298 ;
instigates murders of Aetius and
Valentinian, 299; reign, 321 sqq. ;
coins, 332

Maximus, tyrant in Spain, 192
Mazdak, communist, ii. 9
Mazices, 433
Mead, 281

Mediolanum, see Milan
Meduaco, r., ii. 262
Megara, Alaric at, 119 ; fortress
restored, ii. 310
Megas, bishop, ii. 96
Melania (junior), 177 n., 226
Melantias, 421 ; ii. 305 sq.

Melitene, 94 ; ii. 344
Membressa, battle at, ii, 144
Memnon, bishop, 353
Menander, historian, ii. 430
Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople,
ii. 51, 172, 377 ; condemns Origen-
istic doctrines, 3S3 ; sup ports
Justinian in controversy of Three
Chapters, 386 sqq,

Menelaites, ii. 343
Mermeroes, ii. 114, 116, 117
Merobaudes, general, 99
Merobaudes, poet ; statue of, 251 ;
Patrician, ib. ; works, ib. sq . ; mag,
%tr, mil,, 252

Meroe, kingdom of, ii. 318
Merovingian family, 242
Mesopotamia, division between Rome
and Persia, 93 sq. ; devastated by
Huns, 114; province, duke of, ii. 88
Messianus, 328
Messina, ii. 247
Methone (Modon), ii. 129

477

INDEX

Metrical chants, in the Hippodrome,
ii 74
Metz, 291

Michael, archangel, churches of, 87 ;

as a physician, 373
Milan, tomb of St. Nazaritis, 120;
Imperial residence, 160 ; Aiario at,
161 ; Attila at, 295 ; Theoderic at,
423 ; recovered by Odovacar, 424;
besieged by Cloths and Burgundians,
ii. 192; massacre of inhabitants,
203 ; population of, ?'A
Milvian Bridge, see Home
Mimas, Mt,, 135
Minduos, ii. 81

Mines, 51, 269 ; servitude in, ii. 414
Mints, ii, 357
Misimians, ii. 120
Mithras, religion of, 368
Moderator lustiniamis, of Heleno-
pontus, ii. 341 ; of Phoenicia Liban-
ensis, ib.

Modestinus, ii. 397

Moesia : Lower, 109 ; 267 : towns of, 270 ;

274 ; Ostrogoths in, 412; ii 340
Upper, i. 267 ; towns of, 271
Moguntiacum, see Mainz
Mo-kan, ii 314
Molatzes, ii. 96

Monasticism, 382 sqq. ; turbulence of
monks, 386 ; monasteries promoted
by Justinian, ii. 362 sq,

Monaxius, Pref. of Constantinople,
213 ; Praet. Pref., 220
Money, purchasing power of, 51 ; see
Coinage

Money-changers, ii. 357
Monophysite heresy, 35S sq., 402 sqq.,
436 sqq. ; Justin’s persecution of
monophysites, ii. 372 ; Justinian’s,
377 sq. ; different sections of, 375
Monoiiolies, ii. 356
Mons Colubrarius, 242
Mens Feietris, ii. 195, 231
Mons Lactarius, battle of, ii. 273 sq.
IMontanists, ii. 364
Monte Cassino, ii. 224
Moors, hostility of, 223, 245 ; Imperial
gifts to client chiefs, ii. 135 ; names
of tribes, 141 ; wars with Justinian’s
generals, 141-148

Mosaics, at Rome, 262 ; at Ravenna,
262 sq; ii. 284 sq. ; at Constantinople,
50, 53 sq.

Mosehian, 420
Moses of Cliorenc, ii. 0
Mschatta, palace of, 78
Muaviah, ii. 320
Mugel, king, ii. 311 sq.

Mugcllo, battle of, ii. 230
Mundhir (A1-), ii. 4, 81 ; entitled king,
91, 92, 324

I Mundilas, ii. 202 sqq.

! Mundiuch, 272, 273, 278
i Mundo, 460

Mundus, maq. mil., activity at the
Hika revolt, ii. 41, 43, 46 : Persian
campaign, 87 sg. ; conquers Dal-
matia, 170 ; death, 174 ; repulses
Bulgarians, 296

Municipalities, decline of, 59 sqq. ; ii.
351 sq.

Muranum, ii. 247
Mursa, 166
Musaeus, poet, ii. 434
Mutilation, as punishment, ii. 415

Ffabataeans, 95
Habedes, ii. 107 sq.

Hachoragan, ii. 117, 119
Haissus, centre of roads, 268, 269 sq. :
taken by Huns, 274, 279 ; Theo-
demir at, 412 ; ii. 309
Nam an, chief of Hira, ii. 11
Namatius, 344

Naples, walls strengthened by Valen-
tinian III., 254 ; besieged and taken
by Belisarins, ii. 175 sqq. ; size of
the city, 176; 272
Narbo Martius, see Narbonne
Narbonensis, };)rovince, 198, 204, 462
Narbonne, 195; taken by Athaulf,
196 ; his marriage at, 197 ;
blockaded, 198 ; restored to Em-
pire, 204 ; besieged by Theoderio
I., 249 ; ecclesiastical position of,
363 ; attacked by Ohildebert, ii. 286
Narnia, 175, 176 ; li. 181 sq., 195, 270
Narses, eunuch, financial official, ii.
46 ; at the Nika revolt, ib. ; assists
in ruin of John the Cappadocian,
57 ; sent to Italy {a.d. 538), 197 ;
urges relief of Rimini, ib. ; dis-
sension with Belisarins, 199 sqq.;
recalled, 205 ; sent to recruit
Heruls, 235 ; Grand Cliamberlain,
256 ; appointed Commander-in-
CMef in Italy, 250 ; popularity, ib. ;
his army, 261; marches to Italy,
261; at Ariminum, 263; march
to ' Via Flaminia, 263, 2S8 ;

victory over Totila, 264 sqq. ;
seizes Rome, 270 ; victory over
Teias, 272 sqq.; besieges Cumae,
275 ; besieges Lucca, 276 ; at
Rome, 277; victory over Ala-
manni, 278 sqq. ; administration
of Italy, 281 sqq.; inscription of,
283 ; ecclesiastical policy, 284 ;
defeats Solavenes, 297
Narses, general, ii. 80, 85 ; in Armenia,
107 ; death, 108 ; in Italy, 213;
in Egypt, 329, 371
Narses, Armenian Patriarch, ii. 88

478 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Navicularii, CO, 213, 257 n.

Navy, in fourth and iifth centuries,
44 sq, ; naval battles, 327 ; ii. 259
Nebridiiis, 121
Nedao, battle of r., 296
Nejd, ii. 325
Nejran, ii. 324
Neocaesarea, 383
Neon, bishop, 262
Neoplatonism, 217, 375 sq,

Nephalius, 438

Nepos, Julius, Emperor, treaty with
Euric, 343 ; governor of Dalmatia,
404 ,* Emperor, 405 ; flees from
Eavenna, ib, ; acknowledged by
Zeno, 407 ; death, 408, 410
Nestorians, driven from the Empire,
354

Nestorius, Patriarch, 351 sqq. ; banish-
ment, 354 ; captured by Blemyes,
238 ; activity against Manichees,
378 ; Booli of Heradides, 351, 352
Nibelungenliedt 200, 249, 272
Nicetas, of Remesiana, 271, 371
Nicetius, bishop of Trier, ii. 393
Nicolaus, of Methone, 375 '
Nicomedia, ii. 357
Nicopolis (Greek), ii. 259
Nieopolis (Moesian), 270
Nicopolis (Armenian), ii. 344
Nika revolt, ii. 39 sqq.

Nisibis, 94 ; ii. 3 ; siege a.d. 421, 4 ;
Anastasius demands restoration,
10, 15 ; as an emporium, 122
Nitria, monks of, 150, 218
Nobadae, 237 ; ii. 328 sqq., 371
Nobilusimus. the title, 8
Nola, 184

Nomads, meaning of, 102
Nomus, maq. off., 276
Nomus, Patrician, ii. 80
Nonnosus, ii. 326
Nonnus, poet, 228 ; ii. 431 sqq.
Nonnus, Origenist, ii. 382
Noreia, ii. 301

Noriciim, provinces, tomis, and roads
of, im sq.; Alaric in, 170, 174;
Alaric demands, 179 ; in sixth
century, 461

Notifia Dignitatum , 26, 41, 201
Nolitla nrbis Gonstanilnojjolitanae,
date of, 68
Novae, 267, 275, 412
Nov aria, ii, 202
Novels (novellae), see Law
Novempopulana, 204, 207, 242
Noxae deditio, ii. 401
Nuceria, ii. 272
Rmnemrii, S2

Numerus, military unit, 168 ; ii. 76

Numidia, 247, 249, 255
Nunechia, 193

Nursia, ii. 224
Nymphius, r., 93, 95

Oasis, 354
Ohbane, ii. 98
Obryzum, 54
Octar, 272

Odessus, 267, 270, 448
Odovacar, king, his rule in Italy, 406
sqq. ; negotiations with Zeno, 407,
cp. 410 ; coins, 400, 454 ; war
with Theoderic, 422 sqq. ; death,
426 ; negotiations with Ulus, 397,
410 ; Ostrogothic theory of his
position, ii. 189 sq.

Oescus, 271

Offiemm, offidales, 29, 31 sqq. ;

number of, 33

Olybrius, Emperor, marries Placidia,
325 ; candidate of Gaiseric for
Imperial throne, 327 ; death, 328
Olympian games, end of, 370
Olympias, 141, 157
Olympiodorus, 160, 174, 185 ; ii. 417
Olympius, minister of Honorius, 171
sq.; mag. off., 174, 177 ; fall, 178
Omboi, ii. 330
Onegesius, 280, 283 sqq.

Onoguris, ii. 119
Onoulf, 393
Opilio, ii. 154, 164
Opsites, ii. 115
Optaris, ii. 178
Optatus, 157
Optila, 299 sq.

Oracles, 369 ; Sibylline, ii. 174,
187^1?.

[ Orange, 342

I Orestes, Pref. aug., 218 sg'.

! Orestes, secretary of Attila, 276, 279 ;
marriage, 282; 7nag. mil., 405;
death, 406

Origenist heresies, 149 sq. ; ii. 381
sqq., 389

I Orleans, Alans settled at, 250 ;
Attila at, 292 ; battle of (a.T),
463), 333
Orocasias, ii. 96
Orosius, 204, 306
Orvieto, 5ee Urbs Vetus
Osrhoene, 37

Ostia, 257 ; decline of, ii. 187; 236,
241

Ostrogoths, 97, 100 ; settlers in

Phrygia, 129 ; in Pannonia, 166 ;
under Eadagaisus, 107 sq. ; under
the Huns, 277, 291 ; revolt, 296 ;
settled in Pannonia, 297, 411;
repelled by Pvicimer, 332; their
invasions of Balkan lands in Zeno’s
reign, 412 sqq. ; conquest of Italy,
422 5gg. ; organisation of Italian

INDEX

470

kingdom, 453 fiqq. ; number of, in
Italy, ii. 181 ; war with Justinian,
169 sqq. ; terras granted to, by
Narses, 274
Ostrys, 320

Otranto, reinforcements for Belisarius
land at, ii. 188 ; besieged by Totila
and relieved, 234 ; Leiitliaris at,
278

Otricoli, 196
Ovilava, 166

Pachomius, 383
Pacrarius, ii. 271
Pddkospans, ii. 89
Padusia, 240
Paederasty, ii. 337, 412
Pagans, paganism, at Rome, 164, 175,
176 : persecution and decline of,
365 sqq. ; Chrysostom on, 374 ;
in Greece, 369, 374 sqq. ; pagans
•support revolt of Ilhis, 399 ; at
Rome in sixth century, ii. 186, n. 2 ;
in Campania, 224 ; decay of. 367 ;
Justinian’s measures against, 367
sqq.

Palatini (troops), 35
Palchus, 398

Palestine, provinces of, ii. 341
Palladas, 217, 374 ; ii. 431
Palladius, Life of Chrysostom, 138
Palladius, Caesar, 32-4
Palladius, Patriarch of Antioch, 429
Palladius, Praet. Pref. of East, 237
Palmaria, ii. 380
Palmyra, 96
Pamphylia, 130
Pamprepius, 396, 398, 399
Pannonia, provinces, towns, and roads
of, 166 sq. ; Ostrogoths and Huns
in, 166, 272 ; Alamanni settled in,
461 ; Theodebert claims dominion
in, ii. 257 ; Lombards in, 301 ;
Heruis settled in Pannonia Secunda,
300

Pannysus, 267
Paiiopolis, 383

Panormus, siege by Gaiseric, 254 ;
taken by Belisarius, ii. 171 j
Liberius at, 225
Panteichion, ii. 57
Papac3% 6‘ee Roman see
Pa])hlagonia, j^rovince reconstituted,
ii. 34i

Pax>mian, ii. 397
Papirius, fort of, 397
Papua, Mt., ii. 138
Parabalani, 219
Parembole, 384
Parma, ii. 277
Parricide, ii. 410
Parthenon, the, 370

Paschal cycle, 466
Passara, ii. 19
Pastor, ii. 175, 177
Patara, ii, 379
Patiens, bishoj), 341
Patrse, it. 385

Patria, lldrpta K6j:^£rrarrtro7r4\rw?, 08
Patria potestas, ii. 401 sq.

Patriarch of Constantinople, juris-
diction of, 64 sq. ; his pari at
Imperial coronations, 11, 236 ;

extent of jurisdiction increased, 358
Patriarchate of Alexandria, struggle
for supremacy, 355-358 ; see Theo-
philus, Cyril

Patriarchate of Antioch, 65
l^atriarchate of Jerusalem, 04 sq.
Patriarchates, 64
Patrician, title, 20

“ Patrician,” the, in eminent sense,
252, 32S ; ii. 283

Patriciolus, Count of Federates, 448 ;
ii. 12

Patricius, son of As par, 317, 319, 320
Patricius, rnag. mil. in praes., 439,
448, 451 ; ii. 12, 13
Patricius, mag. off., 317 ; paramour
of Verina, 390 i'g.

Patrimonium, Imperial. 51 ; ii. 354;

see Comes pair.

Patroclus, bishop, 362
Patronage {Trpouracrt a), 59
Paul, commander on the Loire, 342,
346

Paul, interpreter of Chosroes, ii. 97
Paul, the Silentiary, ii. 52, 4k)

Paul, officer of Belisarius, ii. 251
Paul, the Deacon, Lombard historian,
ii. 299

Paul, Patriarch of Alexandria, ii. 380
Paul Helladiciis, ii. 412
Paulinus, of No la, 16S
Paulinus, of Pella, 198 sq.

Paulinus, mag. off., 229 sq.

Paulus, jurist, ii. 397
Pautalia, 268, 417
Pavia, see Ticiniim
Peak, Roman watclihouse at, 200
Pegasius, bishop, 367
Pelagia, wife of Boniface, 245
Pelagius I., Pope, ii. 237 sq. ; pleads for
Rome with Totila, 242 ; sent to
Constantinoj)ie, 243 ; consecrated
Pope, 283 ; relations with N arses,
283 sq. ; papal nuncio at Constanti-
nople, 380 ; imprisoned, 390
Pelagius, heretic, Pelagian contro-
versy, 201, 359 sqq.

Pelagius, patrician, 402
Pella, 270

Peloponnesus, 120, 334 ; ii. 297
Pepper, Indian, 281 ; ii. 321

480 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Peranius, ii. 110, 170
PerfectissimuSf title, 19
Perozes (Piniz), king, ii. 7
Perozes, mihran, ii. 82 sq.

Perpetuus, bishop, 342
Persarmenia, ii. 6, 88 ; Romans invade,
107 sq.

Persecutions, of pagans, 365 sqq. ; ii.
367 sqq, ; of heretics, i. 110, 378 sqq. ;
ii. 364 sqq., see also Monophysites
Persia, influences of, on the Empire,
11, 93 ; organisation of the State,
90 sqq. ; Magian priests, 92 ;
diplomatic relations with the Em-
pire, 92 sq. ; frontiers, 93 sq. ;
embassy to Euric, 343 ; history
of, in fifth century, ii. 1 sqq.
wars with Roman Empire : 96 ; a.i>.
420, 3 sq. ; a.d. 440, 5 sq. ; A.D.
502-507, 10 sqq, : under Justin
and Justinian, chap. xv.
treaties wdth Empire : a.d. 422, ii.
4; A,D. 442, 6; truce of A.D.
505, 14 ; Endless Peace, a.d.
532, 88 ; of a.d. 445, 112 ; of a.d.
551, 117; of A.D. 556, 120;
treaty of 50 years {a.d. 562),
121 sqq.

wars with Ephthalites, ii. 5 sqq.
Mazdakism, ii. 9

Perusia (Perugia), ii. 181, 235, 246
Peter, bishop of Apamea, ii. 373
Peter Barsymes, ii. 33, 48, 331, 349
Peter Chrysologus, bishop, 262
Peter the Puller, Patriarch of Antioch,
402

Peter, general of Justinian, ii. 107,
108,110

Peter Mongus, Patriarcli of Alex-
andria, 3%

Peter, Patriarch of Jerusalem, ii. 383
Peter, Patrician, negotiates treaty
with Persia, ii. 121, 123 ; sent
to Italy, 163; connexion with
murder of Amalasuntha, IMsqq . ;
returns to Constantinople, 168;
in Rome, negotiates with Theo-
dahad, 172 ; returns to Constan-
tinoplo, 172 ; returns to Italy
and is imprisoned, 173 ; released,
20G ; made mag. off,, ib. ; his
Homan History, 418 ; probably
an informant of Procopius, 429
his Kardarcicris or Book of Cere-
monies quoted, i. 316, 323, 429 ;
ii. 17, 164

Petra (Arabian), 354
Petra (Colehian), ii. 101; taken by
Chosroes,102 ; besieged by Romans,
114 ; captured, 116
Petra Pertusa (in Umbria), ii.. l9o sq.;
231, 263, 272

Petra Pertusa (near Rome), ii. 272
Petronius, see Maximus, Petronius
Petronxus, Pr. Prefect, 207
Phabrigus, ii. 114
Phanagoria, ii. 312
Pharas, ii. 82, 84, 138
Pharsalus, ii. 309
Pheidias, his statues, 370
Philadelphia, ii. 37
Philae, 237 ; ii. 330, 371
Philemuth, Herul, ii. 261
Philippopolis, 267, 268 ; taken by
Huns, 274 ; territory ravaged by
Theoderic Strabo, 413 ; Narses at,
ii. 256 ; refortified, 308
Philostorgius, 107 ; ii. 418
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, trans-
lated by Sidonius, 343
Philoxenus, see Xenaias
Phocas, Praet. Pref. of the East, ii.
41, 55, 368

PhoGas, Praet Pref. of Illyricum, ii. 368
Phocas, envoy of Zeno to Theoderic,
416

Phocas, guardsman of Belisarius, ii.
236

Pholoe, 120

Photius, son of Antonina, ii. 60 sq.,
170

Phrygia, Ostrogoths in, 129 ; ii. 341

Physicians, salaries of, ii. 352

Picenum, ii. 193, 206

Piets, 188, 200

Pierius, 409

Pillar-saints, 383

Pirates, 135

Piroz, king, 397

Pisa, 121 ; battle at, 178; surrenders
:to-.Karses,'275: ■ ■

Pisaurum, ii. 235, 278
Pisidia, 130 ; ii. 341
Pityaxes, ii. 83 sq,

Pityus, 158 ; ii. 313
Pitzias, 460
Placentia, 327 ; ii. 236
Placidia, Calla, date of birth, 108 n.
project to marry Eucherius, 106;
approves Serena’s death, 175;
bronze tablet of, ib. ; made cap-
tive by Visigoths, 184, 194 ; marries
Athaulf, 197; her son, 199; iil-
treated, ib. ; restored to Honorins,
203 ; marriage w’itli Constantins,

: 203,; crowned Augusta, 209 ;
breach with Honorius, 210 ; goes
to Constantinople, ib. and 221 ;

■: bargain with Theodosius ' .II. , 221
. sq. ; "return: to . Italy, . , 222 ;; at
■ ■ Aquileia ib., 223 at . Rome, 224 ;
regent for her son, 240 sqq. ; death,
260; sarcophagus, 263; churches
built by, 262 -sg, ; coins, 221 -n,, 264

INDEX

481

Placidia, daughter of Valentiiixau III.,
251, 253; wife of Olybrius, 325 ;
captive at Carthage, ib.

Plagium, iL 410

Plague, Great, of 6th century, ii.
62 5^^., 104,. 107

Plato, philosopher, study of, at
Athens, 375 sq. ; at Alexandria, iL
Plato, Pref. of Constantinople, 437,
439

Plebeian status, ii. 413 (cp, i. 48)
Plotinopolis, ii. 308
Plotinus Eustathius, 332 i
Plotinus, Neoplatonist, 217, 375
Plutarch, philosopher, 375
Poetovio, 166 sq.

Political science, 376
Pollentia, battle of, 161
Poiyaenion, rhetor, 132
Pompeius, 452 ; ii, 16, 20, 42 ; death,
47 ; perhaps commanded in the
East, 81

Pompeianus, Prefect of Pome, 176
Pomptine marshes, drained, 458 ; ii.
177

Pontic provinces, ravaged by Tzani(?),
322'

Pontifex Maximus, as Imperial title,
366,368

Pontoons, ii. 104

Population of the Roman Empire,
53, 62 (cp, 308); of Rome, 88;
of Constantinople, ib. ; of Antioch,
ib. ; of Alexandria, ih . ; of ancient
Germany, 105 ; of Milan, ii. 203
Porphyrins, charioteer, 84
Porphyrins, bishop of Gaza, 143 sqq.
Porphyrins (Porphyry), pMosopher,
371

Portus, 176 ; seized by Alaric, 181 ;
held by Ostrogoths, ii. 187 ; oc-
cupied by Belisarius, 191 ; under
command of Innocent, 236 ; Beii-
sarius at, 239 sqq.

Portus I^eonis, 426
Portusoale, 328

Post, State, see Oursus Publicus
Praefeckis annonae, 29
Praefectiis augustalis, 21 ; ii. 343
Praefectus vigilum, 29 ; ii. 337
Praefecii (military), 35
Praejecta, niece of Justinian, ii. 19,
33, 67, 146
Praenetus, 153
Praepositi (military), 35
Praepositus sacri mhimili, 33, 56
Pfaepositus Augustae, 220
Praeses insular um, 213
Praesides, 27
Praesidius, ii. 191 sq.

Praetor, 5ec Praetorship
Praetor of Denies, ii. 337
VOL. II.

Praetor lustinianus, of Paphlagonia,
Pisidia, Lycaonia, ii. 341
Praetorian Prefect of Africa, ii. 140 sq.
Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, 330
Praetorian Prefect of lilyricum, seat
of, 276

Praetorian Prefects, functions of,
27 sq., 49 ; treasuries of, 51 ; ques-
tion as to Praet. Pref. of the East
in A.D. 395-400, 115 sg. ; chrono-
logy of Prefects of the East under
Anastasius, 470 sq. ; criticisms on
Prefecture of East by John Lydus,
ii. 36 ; powers diminished, 340
Praetorian Prefectures, the four, 26 sq.
Praetorship, 18, 237 ; praetorian

games, cost of, 50
Pragmatic Sanctions, ii. 282, 390
Predestination, controversy on, 359

Prefect of the City, duties to the
Senate, 21 ; functions, 28 sq. ;
under Justinian, ii. 337 ; prefects of
Constantinople under Anastasius I.,
chronology of, i. 437 ; under Justin-
ian, ii. 337

Prefect of Italy, ii. 282
Prefects of camp {iwapxoL rod arparo-
TTedov), 471

Prefectures, Praetorian, see Praetorian
Prefectures

Prices, 51 ; of silk, ii. 331 ; see Corn,
and Wages

Primasius, bishop of Carthage, ii. 390
Primicerius notariorum, 26
Primicerius s. cubicuU, 33
Prince’s Islands, ii. 393
Pripet, r., ii. 293

Priscian, grammarian, 467 ; ii. 223 ;

Panegyric on Anastasius, ii. 12
Priscian, Athenian philosopher, ii. 370
Prisciliian, 381

Priscus, historian, 272; narrative of
embassy to Attila, 279 sqq. ; source
of Cassiodorus, John of Antioch,
and others, 291, 299, 324, 327, 337 ;
importance of, ii. 418, 429
Priscus, Imperial secretary, ii. 33
Proaeresius, 374
Proba, Anieia Faltonia, 183
Probianus, 333

Probus, nephew of Anastasius, 452 ;
pardoned hy Justinian, ii. 25, 42 ;
mission to Bosporus, 80, 311
Proclus, Neopiatonist, 375 sqq., 399
Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople,
355

Proclus, man of science, 452
Proclus, quaestor, ii. 23, 79
Proconsuls, of Africa, Asia, Aehaia,
27 ; of Asia, 213; of Cappadocia,
ii. 342

482 HISTORY OF TEE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Procopius, of Caesarea, Mstoriaii, |
considers Justin’s reign as virtually i
Justinian’s, ii. 21 ; Secret History,
21, 24; on St. Sophia, 50 ; on
the date of the composition of the
IFfrrs, 59 ; description of the
Plague quoted, 32 sqq. ; accom-
panies Belisarius to Africa, 129 ;
comments on the battles of Peci-
miim and Tricamaron, 134, 137 ;
accompanies Solomon to Sicily,
143; collects troops in Campania,
188 ; statements as to the fate of
Amalasuntha, 165 ; system of
dating years of the Italian war, 169 ;
echoes of Thucydides, ib., 189 ; did
not return to Italy (after a,b. 540),
227 ; sources of information for
Britain, 258; devices for oriticis-
ing Justinian, 303 ; general account
of his life and works, 419 sqq.
Procopius, of Gaza, theological work
of, 375; Panegyiic on Anastasius,
date of, 435 ; ii. 420, 430
Procopius, son-in-law of Anthemius,
Pr. Pr., ii. 4

Procopius, son of Emperor Anthemius,
395

Promotus, governor of a Noric pro-
vince, 282

Promotus, general, exiled by Rufinus,
107, 108 '

Property, laws of, ii. 403 sq.

Protectores, 37, 40
Proterius, Patriarch, 358
Prostitution, ii, 30

Proterius, Patriarch of Alexandria,
402 ; cp. ii. 327, 415
Provence, ceded to Visigoths, 343
Prudentius, 161, 164
Psendo-comftatenses, 36
Psoes, ii. 380
Pudentius, ii. 128

Pulcheria, Empress, birth, 131;
Augusta, 214 ; regency, 214 sqq . ;
coins, 214, 220, 236 ; discord u-ith
Eudocia, 229 ; marries Marcian,
236 ; death, 238 ; churches founded
by, ib. ; quarrel with Nestorius, 352
Pulvemticum, 39
Punishments, ii. 410 sqq.

Pythagorean numbers, ii. 398
Pythia, hot springs of, ii. 34

Quaesitor, ii. 337
Quaestor s. ])alatii,. 29
Quaestor lustinianus Exercitus, ii.
315,340

Quodvultdeiis, bishop, 259

Radagaisiis, his invasion of a.d. 401,
100 sq. ; of a.d. 405, 167 sq.

Raetia, invaded by Radagaisus, 160
sq.; provinces of, 166 ; Aetiiis in, 244
Ragnaris, ii. 260, 271
Rastia, ii. 275
Ratiaria, 271, 274

Ravenna, becomes Imperial residence,
163 ; Stilieho executed at, 172;
threatened by Alaric, 181 ; Placidia
banished from, 210 ; John’s tyranny
at, 223; seized by Aspar, 224 ;
description of, 260 sqq.; churches
of fifth century, 262 sqq. ; siege of,
by Theoderio, 425 sq. ; harbours
of, 426 ; Theoderic’s buildings at,
467 sq. ; taken by Belisarius, ii.
213 ; distances from Rome and
Aquileia, 225 ; Narses at, 263 ;
churches built or completed under
Justinian, 284
Reehiar, 256, 328
Recitach, 413, 421
Eeferendarii, 23 ; ii. 65
Regata, ii, 177

Regnal years of Emperors, used for
dating, ii. 348
Beleqatio, ii. 414
Relics, 227, 238
Remesiana, 268
Remi (Rheims), 186
Remigius, bishop, 346
Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, on
Aetius, 241

Reparatus, Praet. Pref., ii. 204

Reparatus, bishop, ii. 390

Resaina, 94

Respendial, 186

Res privata, 51

Revenue, State, see Finance

Rhaedestus, ii. 309

Rhegium (in Italy), 184; taken by
Belisarius, ii. 175 ; Totila at, 252
Rhegium (on the Marmora), 269, 421
Rhine frontier, 169, 186
Rhodes, 257
Rhodon, ii. 380

Ricimer, relationship to Waliia, 204 ;
mag. mil., 327 ; defeats Vandals,
ih. ; deposes Avitus, 328 ; acts
in concord with Leo L, 329, 334,
341; Patrician, 329 ; puts M'ajorian
to death, 332 ; decorates church at
Rome, 329 ; defends Italy, 332 ;
sets up Severus, ; monogram
on coins, ib. ; opponent of Marcel-
■■ linus, 333 ; sets up Anthemius, 334 ; :
marriage with Alypia, 338 ; discord
and war with Aiithemius, 339 sq. ;
sets up Olybrius, 340 ; death, il , ;
his position and difficulties, 340 5m
Riez, 342
Riothamus, 342
Ripuarian Franks, see Franks

INDEX 483

Roads, (1) Syria and E. Asia J^Iindr,
94-90 ; (2) Raetia, Noriciim, Pan-
nonia, 166 sq. ; (3) Balkan penin-
sula, 267 sqq. ; (4) coast road from
Ravenna to Altino, ii. 262, and see
under Nm

Roderick, Gothic officer, ii. 241
Rodnlf, Herul king, ii. 299
Roman see, claims of, and growth of
its power, 362 . ; privileges

granted by Valentinian III., 364
(cp. 355, 358) ; Imperial claim of
confirming election to, ii. 391
Romania, nse of term, 197
Romanns, duke of Palestine, 434
Romanus, hymn-writer, ii, 432
Rome, population, 88 ; Honorius at,
163 ; besieged by Alaric, first
siege, 175 ; second siege, 180 ;
third siege and capture, 183 sq . ;
taken by Gaiseric, 324 ; besieged
by Witigis, ii. 180 sqq. ; besieged
by Totila {a,d. 546), 236 sqq .;
uninhabited for forty days, 245 ;
reoccupied by Belisarius, ib. ;
Totila’s second siege (a.b. 549),
249 sqq. ; partial demolition of
walls, 243 ; distances from Con-
stantinople and Ravenna, 225
aqueducts, ii, 184, 193
Aventine Hill, ii. 250
bridges : pons Aelius, ii. 251 ; pons
Aurelius, 183 ; pons Milvius, 182,
194 ; pons Salaries, 182
Campus Neronis, ii. 183
pmriies : St. Peter, 163, 184 ; ii.
242 ; St. Paul, i. 163, 184 ; St.
Maria Maggiore, 163, 262 ; St.
John (Lateran), 184 ; ii. 379 ;
St. Peter ad vincula, i. 226, 227 ;
St. Agatha (Arian), 329 ; St,
Chrysogonus, 340 ; St. Puden-
ziana, 262 ; St. Costanza, 262 ;
St. Croce in Gerusalemme, 262 ;
St. Sabina, ii. 379; St. Cecilia,
ii. 384 ; St. Silvester (Via Salaria),
ii. 390

Circus Maximus, 81, 88 ; ii. 252
Forum of Trajan, 251
gates : Asinaria, ii, 180, 242, 379 ;
Aurelia, 185 ; Flaminia, 180, 183,
250 ; Labicana, 183 ; Nomentana,
183 ; Pincia, 183, 193 ; Ostiensis
(San Paolo), 183, 188, 250;

Salaria, 183 ; ii. 182 ; Tiburtina,
183

Island of the Tiber, 338
Mausoleum of Hadrian, ii. 251, 270
palaces : Imperial ( on the Palatine),
325; of Sallust, 184 ; of the
Valorii, 184 ; Pincian, ii. 180, 379
quarters, the Aventine, 184

Rome—

temples : of Great Mother, 175;

of Jupiter Capitolinus, 325 ; of
. Janus, ii. 186
walls, restored, ii. 180
See also under Paganism, Senate
Romulus (Augustulus), Emperor, 405

Romulus, son of Emperor Anthemius,
395

Romulus, count, 282
Rossano, 566 Rusoianum
Rufiniis, Praet. Prefect, estates of,
87 ; career and death, 107-113 ;
Claudian on, 113 sq.

Rufinus, envoy to Persia, ii.' 82, 88
Rugians, 100, 103 ; under the Huns,
277, 291 ; conquered by Odovaear,
411 ; under Theoderic, 425
Rugila, 241, 248, 271; death, 272 ;

form of his name, 278
Rnscia, ii. 247
: Ruscianum, ii. 247 sq.

Rusticius, 280

Rusticus, Imperial purse - bearer, ii,
118 sq.

Rusticus, bishop, ii. 168
Rutilius Namatianus, 173, 185 ; on
Jews, 381

I Sabas, St., 383 ; ii. 383
Sabbatins, ii. 19

I Sabeiroi, Sabirs (‘‘^Huns”), 115, 434 ;
i in Persian service, ii. 85, 313
Sabinian Magnus, mag. mil. per lUgr.,
418, 420, 421

Sabinian, son of preceding, ?nag. mil.

per Illyr. (consul a.d. 505), 460
Safar, ii, 327
Saginae, ii. 313
Sahel, laura of, 384
Saint Albans, battle of, 201
Saiones, 458

Salaries of officials, 33 ; ii. 342, 343
Salian Franks, see lYanks
Sallust, Patriarch of Jerusalem, 384
Salona, palace of Diocletian, 78 ;
occupied by Theodosius II., 221;
Ardaburius embarks at, 222;
Glycerius at, 405; taken by
Mundus, ii. 170 ; walls repaired,
174 ; distances from Aqiiileia and
Byrrhachium, 225 ; Belisarius at,
234 ; John awaits Harses at, 256,
: 259, 261 ; Narses at, 263,

Salvia, 107
Salvian, 307 sq.

Salvina, 121, 141
Salzburg, see » avavum
Samaritans, r .volts of, ii. 85, 365 sq.
Sambsata, 9 ,, 96
I San Marinr ii. 198

484 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Sandichl, ii. 303, 307
Sangarius, r., bridge of, ii. 421
Sapaiidia, 249

Saracens, 95 ; of Hira, and Ghassan,
434 ; ii. 91 sq.

Sardica, 266, 268 ; taken by Huns,
275 ; Germanns at, ii. 254 ; 309
Sardinia, 37 ; conquered by Vandals,
258, 333 ; Marcellinus attacks,

337 ; under Vandals, ii. 128 ;
recovered by Empire, 137 ; occu-
pied by Totila, 260 ; administration
of, attached to Africa, 283
Sarno, r., see Draco
Sarus, Gothic leader, 172, 174, 183,
190, 194 5^.

Sarus, king of Alans, ii. 315
Sassoferrato, ii. 289 sq.

Sasu, ii. 322
Satala, 94 ; ii. 344
Satuminus, 133, 148
Satuminus (? mn. dornesL), 231
Savaria, 167

Savia, province, 166, 272
Savoy, see Sapaudia
Saxons, invasion of Britain, 200 ;
conquest of, 201 n. ; attacks on
Gallic coasts, 202 n . ; on the Loire,
292, 346 ; see Litus Saxonicum
Scalas Veteres, battle of, ii. 145
Scampae, 270, 416
Scandinavia, 97 ; ii. 301
Scardona, ii. 174, 259
Scardus, Mt., 269, 417
Scarpantia, 166
Sceparnas, ii. 115
Scheggia (Aesis), ii. 289
Scholae, Scholarian guards, 37, 401 ;
ii. 17, 359

Scirians, 100, 213 ; under Huns,
277, 291 ; in Boman service, 406 ;
defeated by Ostrogoths, 412
Sclavenes, see Slavs
Scodra, 270
Scots (Irish), 200
Scottas, a Hun, 280
ScriboneSf ii. 359
Scrvnia, 29 sq., 32
Scriniarii, 32, 443

Scupi, 270 ; ii. 18 ; Justiniana
Prima, 363
Scyilacium, ii. 222
Scj’Ttus, r,, ii. 110
Scythia, province, 270 ; ii, 340
Sebastea (Sivas), 94 ; ii. 344
Sebastian, Pr. Ihefect, 401
Sebastian, tyrant, 195
Sebastian, son-in-law of Boniface,
mag. uir. mil., career of, 248, 255 ;
martyr, 248

SebastopoJis (Suluserai), ii. 344
Sebastopolis, on Euxine coast, ii. 313

Secret service, ii. 358
Seeundinus, brother-in-law of Anas-
tasius, 432, 437
Seduction, laws on, ii. 411
Selinus (Isaurian), 433
Selymbria, 268
Semipeiagianism, 361
Sena Gallica, battle of, ii. 259
Senate ; functions in electing Em-
perors, 5 ; legislative rights, 12
sq., 21, n. 6 ; admission to, IS
sqq. ; numbers of senators, 20 sq. ;
municipal and Imperial functions,
21; judicial, 22 ; relations to
Imperial Council, 24 ; taxation of
senators, 49 ; wealth of, 60

(1) Senate of Borne: paganism of,
163 sq. ; considers demands of
Aiaric, 170; action during
Alaric’s sieges of Borne, 175 sqq.,
177, 180 ; proceedings for publi-
cation of Theodosian Code, 232
sgg', ; taxes on senators, and
number of, 253 ; relations to
Anthemius, 339 ; to Odovacar,
409 ; accepts Theoderic, 424 ;
under Theoderic, 453, 456, 465
sq. ; Theoderio’s suspicions of,
ii. 152 sqq.

(2) Senate of Constantinople, in-
stitution of, 18 ; Senate-houses,
22 ; under Theodosius II., 215 ;
takes an oath to Theoderic, 414 ;
its part in the election of Anas-
tasius, 431 ; of Justin, ii. 17, 23 ;
disaffection of senators to Jus-
tinian, 42, 48

Benatus consulta, 12
Sentinum, ii. 289
Septimania, 198 ; ii. 161
Septum, ii. 138, 140 ; besieged by
Visigoths, 146, 150
Serajevo, 269

Serapeum, at Alexandria, 149, 368
Serapion, deacon, 142, 148, 157
Serena, marriage, 106 ; at Constanti-
nople, 112; at Milan, 120; on a
diptych, 137 ; unpoi>ularity, 170 ;
executed, 175

Sergius, nephew of Solomon, ii. 56,
145 sq.

Sergius, rhetor of Edessa, ii. 107
Sergius, a general of Justinian, il. 305
Sergius, bishop of Bosapha, ii. 324
Sergius, bishop of Caesarea, ii. 365 sq.
Sergius of Besaina, ii. 382
Sergius, official interproter, ii. 430
Serinda, ii. 332
Seronatus, 339
Sestos, ii 309

Seven Provinces, the (or Viennensis),
diocese of, 27; Council of, 207 338

485

INDEX

Sevorian, bishop of Gabala, 148 sq.,
152,'

Severinus, St., 411

Severus, Libius, Emperor, 332 ; coins,
ik ; death, 334

Severus, Septimras, Emperor, 68, 81
Severus of Sozopolis, monophysite
leader, 438 ; Patriarch of Antioch,
440 sq. ; expelled from Ms see, ii.
373 ; activities in reign of Justinian,
375 sqq. ; anathematised, 377 ;
date of death, ib.

Severus, Sulpicius, on the four great
monarohies, 307
SMp-money, ii, 311
Shorthand writers, 32 ; cp. 153, n. 2
Sibylline Boohs, 173
Sicca Veneria, ii. 149
Sicily, Vandals attack, 254 sq. (cp.
258); Bicimer in, 327 ; Marcellinus
in, 333 ; ravaged by Vandals, ib. ;
Basiliscus in, 336; ceded to Odova-
car, 410 ; under the Ostrogoths, ii.
129; conquest of, by Belisarius,
171 ; administration under Jus-
tinian, 215 sq., 283 ; furnishes
provisions for Naples, 232 ; Totiia’s
vindictiveness towards, 237 sq . ;
supplies food to Rome, 245 ;
Liberius sent to, 253 ; TotHa in,
255 sq. ; he ofiers to resign it,
260

Sidi-Khalifa, ii. 131
Sidimund, 417

Sidonius Apollinaris, beginning of his
career, 326 ; Panegyric on Avitus,
lb.; statue, ib. ; Panegyric on
Majorian, 331 ; Panegyric on An-
themius, 337 ; Prefect of Rome,
338 ; on the trial of Arvandus, ib. ;
bishop of Clermont, 342; im-
pi'isoned by Eurio, 343 ; pictures
of society in Gaul, 334 sq. ; writ-
ings, 335 ; description of Ravenna,
261 ; designs history of Hun in-
vasion, 291
Sielediva, li. 321
Sieii-pi, 101

Sigebert, Frank king, ii. 175 .

Sigerio, Burgundian Idng, 463; ii
158

Sigesar, bishop, 199
Sigismer, 344 "

Sigismund, Biirgundiaii king, 427, 461,
463

Sigisvuit, maq. idr. mil., 245, 254
Bilerifku'ii, 33
Silerdiiwi, 24
Silesia, 99

Siliiig Vandals, 99 ; invade Gaul, 186 ;
invade Spain, 192 ; exterminated,
204

Silk, Persian monopoly of trade, ii.
321 ; Justmian’s attempt to break
it, 325, 331 ; silk factories in the
Empire, 331 ; importation of silk-
worm to Syria, 332
Siiko, ii. 328 sqq.

Silistria, see Burostorum
Silvanus, silver merchant, 282
Silver, ratio to gold, 55
Silverius, Pope, ii 177, 178, 180, 378
sqq., 427

Simas, ii. 83 sq., 86 sq.

Simeon Beth Arsham, ii. 324
Simeon, Stylites, 359, 383
Simeon Stylites, jimior, 402
Simeon, of Gabula, ii. 324
Simony, ii. 361
Simplicius, Pope, 404, 411
Simplicius, Prefect of Constantinople,
155

Simplicius, philosopher, ii. 369 sq.
Sindu, ii. 321
Sindual, ii. 279 sq.

Singara, 94
Singeric, 199

vSingidunum, road from, to Constanti-
nople described, 267 sqq. ; taken
by Huns, 274 ; Sarmatians (Huns ?)
in, 412 ; Theoderic at,

Si'tigulares, 32
Sinnion, ii. 303
Siphrios, ii. 12
Siricius, Pope, 387

Sirmium, 167 ; seat of Pr. Pref. of
Rlyi-icum, 226 ; seized by Huns,
276, 282 ; held by Gepids, 422 ;
taken by Ostrogoths, 460
Sisaurana, ii. 103, 215
Siscia, 166 sq., 269
Sisinnius, 350
SittEbs, ?mq. mil., 80, 93
Sividius, 409
Sixtus III., Pope, 202
SkritMfinoi, ii. 301

Slaveiy, 284; legislation on, ii. 401, 409
Slaves, in the army, 39; domestic,
140 ; trade in, ii. 317, 318
Slavs, vegetarianism, 103 ; under the
Huns, ib. ; original habitations,
ii, 293 sq. ; history and habits, 294 '
sq. ; Sclavenes, 295 sgg. ; Antae, ib. ;
subjugation, by Avars, 315
Socialistio theories, 139, 142 ; ii. 9
Socotra, island, ii. 320
Socrates, historian, ii. 417
Sofia, see Sardioa
Soissons, battle of, 346
Solidus i 55 ; see Coinage
Solomon, eunuch, domesticus of Beli-
sarius, ii. 129 ; Pract. Pref. and
mag. mil. of Africa, 141 sqq. ; 7nug.

/m/i.T Qfrai-n f!h

486 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Solomon, king, golden vessels of, ii.
139

Solomon, envoy to the Franks, ii. 267
Sondis, Mt., 415
Sontius, r., battle of, 422
Sopatros, merchant, ii. 332 sq.
Sophanene and Sophene, 93 ; ii. 344
Sophia, Empress, ii. 70
Sophon, L., canal connecting with
Gulf of Nicomedia, 447
Sopianae, 167
Sosthenion, 87, 450
Sozonien, 174 n, ; ii, 417
Sozopolis, 450
SpaJibedhs, ii. 89

Spain, Constantine III, in, 190 ;
V andals, Sueves, invade, 191 ;

Maximus tyrant in, 192 ; Visigoths
in, 198 sqq. ; barbarian kingdoms
in, A.D. 409-417, 203 ; wars in
(417-418), 204 ; war between Van-
dals and Suevians, 208 ; Vandals
defeat Romans, ib . ; occupy Baetica,
208 ; Visigothic conquest of, 343 ;
Theoderic regent of, 462 ; part of
south, recovered by Justinian, ii.
286 ; exports from, 316
Sparta, 119
SpeataiileSf 19 sg., 33
Speier,187

Spoletium, seized by Belisarius, ii.
181, 191; taken by Totila, 235 ;
recovered, 245 ; Narses at, 270
Sporaoius, 396
Spori ('Ziropoi), ii. 295
Stable of Diomede, 420
Standards, military, 38
Statues, Greece plundered of, 370;

at Constantinople, 394
Stephen of Edessa, physician, ii. 110
Stephen, Neapolitan, ii. 176
Stephen, pro-consul of Palestine, ii.
366,420

Stephen Bar-Sudaili, ii. 381
Stephanas, sm Stephen
Stilieho, his military command, 36 ;
career, 106; supremacy of, chap.
V. ; designs for his son, 108 ; policy
in regard to Illyricum, 110-111,
120, 162, 169, 171 ; eampaigns
against Alaric, in Thessaly, 111;
in Elis, 120 ; defeats Alaric tmce
in Italy, 161, 162 ; on the Rhine
frontier, 119; suppresses Gildo,
122 ; relations to EutropiuSj 126 ;
defeats Badagaisus, 168 ; father-
in - law of Honorius, 125, 170 ;
fail of, 171 sqq.; inscriptions in
honour of, 125, 168 ; responsibility
for misfortunes of Empire, 112 sq,,

Stobh 270, 271, 416

Btotzas, ii. 144 sq., 146
Strassburg, 187
Strata, ii. 92
Strategius, ii. 92, 347
Siraiiotai, mQQimig in sixth century,
ii. 76

Studius, Prefect of Constantinople,

, .. 157 :

Studius, founder of Studite monastery,
385

Suania, ii. 117, 123
Snartuos, ii. 301
Subiaeo, ii. 224
Sncci, pass of, 267

Suevians invade Gaul, 186; invade
Spain, 192 ; recognised by Honorius,
204 ; wars with Vandals, 208, 246 ;
war with Visigoths, 327 sq, ; coins,
ii. 333
Suez, ii. 318
Sufes, ii. 149
Suffragia, ii. 335
Summus, ii. 92
Sunicas, ii. 83 sq.^ 86 sq.

Sunigilda, 425, 426
Sunitae, ii. 313
Superindiotion, 48
Sura, 95 ; ii. 93
Susceptores, 49

Syagrius, friend of Sidonius, 344
Syagrius, governor of Belgica, 346
SyUectum, ii. 130

Symmachus, Q. Aurelius Memniius,
wealth of, 50 ; paganism, 164 ;
pleads for the Altar of Victory,
368

Symmachus, Q. Aurelius Memmius,
jun, (great-grandson of preceding),
consul in A. I). 485, 409 ; executed
by Theoderic, ii. 155
Symmachus, Aurelius Anicius (Prefect
of Rome in A- D. 420), 203
Symmachus, Pope, 464 A'g., 466
Symmachus, Pr. Pr. of Africa, ii.
141

Synesius, the Egypiimis, 128 sq, ; at
Constantinople, 129 ; ir^pl (SacnXelas^
ib. ; friend of Aurelian, 132; friend
of Hypatia, 217
Synods, see Councils
i Syracuse, ii. 171, 236 ; Totila besieges,
255; Vigiiius dies at, 390
Syrians in Italy and Gaul, 261 ; ii.
316

Syrianus, 375

Tadinum or Tadinae (Gualdo Tadiiio),
ii. 264, 268, 290, 291
TaU Brothers, 150 <sg.

Talmis, ii. 330

Taman, peninsula of, ii. 312

Taprobane, 5ee Ceylon

INDEX 487

Tarentum, ii. 244, 260, 271
Tarrach, 452
Tarraco, 192, 344
Tarraconensis, 198, 202
Tarsus, 394 „ ,

Tatiaii, Praet. Pref., 117
Tato, king, ii. 299

Taxation, in fourth and fifth centuries,
46 5^$,, 60, 253 ; reforms of Anas-
tasius, 441 sqq. ; tax roils, 48 ;
under Justinian, ii. 349 sqq , ; see
Custom Duties
Taxes on sales, 253
Tazena, ii. 323

Teias, at Verona, ii. 262 ; recalled
by Totiia, 263 ; at Busta Gallorum,
267; elected king, 270; marches
to Campania, 271 sq. ; defeat and
death, 272 sqq.

Telemachus, monk, 164
Temples, pagan, destruction of, 367,
370 ; Emperors interfere to pre-
serve, 371; ii. 371; see under
Constantinople, and Rome
Tentyra, 383
Teruanna, 187
Tervisium, ii. 213, 228, 229
Tetradites, ii. 383
Tetraxites, ii. 312
Teurnia, 166
Textiles, ii. 317
Thabraca, 122
Thacia, battle of, ii. 146
Thamaila, ii. 149
Thamugadi (Tirngad), ii. 149
Thapsus, ii. 131
Theagenes, 377

Thebais, provinces of, 37, 237 ; ii,
338, 343

Thebes, Boeotian, 119
Thebes, Egyptian, 128
Thela, Caesar, 424
Thelepte, ii. 140, 149
Themistius, 107
Theocritus, ii. 16 sq., 19
Theodahad, son of Amalafrida, ii. 161 ;
character, ib. ; proclaimed king,
163 ; procures murder of Amala-
suntlia, 1 64 sqq. ; letters to J ustinian
and Theodora, 168 ; seeks to avoid
war, 172 sqq. i deposition and
death, 177 sg. ; coins, 171
Theodebald, ii, 258, 275, 281
Theodebert, king, ii. 171; realm of,
202 .sends Burgundian army into
Italy, 203 sqq. ; letters to Justinian,
203, 257 ; .invades Italy, 207 sq.-,
embassy to Witigis, 210 ; occupies
part of northern Italy, 257 ; his
plans, ib. ; coma, ib., 333 ; occupies
Rastia, 275
Theodemir, 411

Theoderic I. (Visigoth), 185; elected
king, 205 ; aggressions of, 242;
besieges Harbonne, 250 ; defeated,
251 ; daughters, 266 ; quarrel with
Gaiseric, 256, 291 ; co-operates with
Aetius against Huns, 292 ; death,
293

Theoderic II. (Visigoth), 242 ; acces-
sion, 327; war with Suevians, ib. ;
death, 337

Theoderic Strabo (son of Triarius), 320
sq. ; supports and then quarrels
with Basiliscus, 392 ; origin, 412 ;
relations with Leo I., 413; mag.
mil. qwaes., ib. ; operations in
Balkan peninsula under Zeno, 413
sqq. ; death, 421

Theoderic, Ostrogoth, son of Theo-
demir, helps Zeno against lilus,
398 ; birth, 411 ; education, 412 ;
occupies Singidunum, ib. ; succeeds
his father, ib. ; mag. mil. pmes. and
Patrician, 413 ; opposes Strabo,
414 sq. ; makes peace with Strabo,
415; ravages Thrace, 416 ; in
Macedonia, ib. ; at Heraclea and
Dyrrhachium, 417 ; interview with
Adamantius, 418 sqq. ; slays Reei-
tach, 421 ; ravages Thessaly, ib. ;
mag. mil., ib. ; marches on Con-
stantinople, ib. ; conquest of Italy,
422-428 ; organises massacre of
Odovacar’s garrisons, 425 ; kills
Odavacar, 426 ; rule in Italy, 453
sqq. ; coins, 454 ; Edict, 455 ; mag.
mil. as well as rex, 456 ; the title
rex, 457 sq. ; religious tolerance,
459 ; campaign against Gepids,
460 ; matrimonial alliances, 461
sq. ; Gallic campaign, 462 ; ruler
of Spain, ib. ; breach with Bur-
gxmdy, 463 ; friction mth Aiias-
tasius, 463 sq. ; arbitrates between
rival Popes, 464 ; change of policy
in regard to the Senate, 466;
illiteracy, 467 ; buildings at Ravenna
467 sq. ; prosperity of Italy under
him, 468 sq. ; designates Eutharic
■ as 'his successor, . ii 151 sq. exe-
cutes Boethius and Symnaachus,
155 ; intervenes with ' Justin in
favour of Arians, 156 sq. ; death,
158 ; adoption of Herul king, 299

Theodimund, 420

Theodora, Empress, parentage and:
early career, ii, 27 sqq. ; olf spring,
27 ; marriage, 29 ; Augusta, ib. ;
portraits of, 29 sq. ; political power,
30 sqq. y a monophysito, 31;
economic independence, ib. ; pro-
tects women, 32 sq. ; procures
fall of Prisons, 33 ; supports Blue

488 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Faction, 34; opposes Justinian’s
ecclesiastical policy, 34 ; dungeons,
34; loYe of pomp, 35; enemy
of Jolin Capp., 39 ; procures Ms
fall, 57 sqq. ; saves the throne in
the Nika revolt, 45 ; visits to
H^rioii, 54 ; death, 66 ; letter to
Zabergan, 93 ; connexion with the
murder of Amalasuntha, 165 sqq. ;
Theodahad’s letters to, 168 ; her
conversion of the Nobadae, 328
sqq. ; monophysitio activities, 376
sqq. ; conceals monophysites in
palace, 377 ; procures banishment
of Pope Silverius and election of
Vigilius, 377 sqq. ; intervenes in
Alexandria, 380 ; supports Theodore
Ascidas, 384; reconciles Vigilius and
Menas, 386 ; Procopius on, 423, 424
Theodore, general, under Solomon,
ii. 143

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 350, 351 ;
cosmographic theories, ii, 320 ; con-
demnation of Ms writings, 383 sqq.
Theodore Ascidas, ii. 383 sq., 388
Theodore, referendarius, ii. 65
Theodore, envoy to the Franks, ii, 257
Theodoret, 357 ; ii. 384, 389, 390 ;

Ecclesiastical History, 418
Theodosian family in Spain, 190, 193
Theodosiopolis, Erzerum, 94 ; date
of foundation, ii. 5 ; taken by
Kavad, 5 ; refortified by Bomans,
15, 104, 344

Theodosius I. (the Great); orgamsa-
tion of army commands, 36 ; death,
106 ; treatment of the Visigoths,
109 ; treaty with Persia, 94 ; con-
structs harbour at Constantinople,
73 ; column of, 75 ; -suppression of
paganism, 368 sqq. ; laws against
Manichees, 377 ; criminal legisla-
tion of, ii. 411 sg.

Theodosius II., Emperor, birth and
baptism, 145 sq. ; does not recog-
nise Constantins III., 210 ; reign
of, 212 sqq. ; education and
studious tastes, 214, 215 ; restores
Valentinian III., 221 sqq, ; illness,
224 ; marriage, 220 ; relations with
Eudocia, 229 sqq. ; founds univer-
sity, 231 sq. ; Code of, 232 sqq.;
death, 235 ; employs Sebastian,
248 ; sends fleet against Vandals,
255 ; ecclesiastical policy, 352-356 ;
laws against paganism, 371 ; coins,
220, 223, 224 (with Valentinian III.),
225, 227 (17th consulship), 231 (a.d.
443) ; laws on divorce, h. 407 sq.
Theodosius, Patriarch of Alexandria,
ii. 319, 328, 380
Theodosius, arcMmandrite, 384

Theodosius, lover of Antonina, ii. 60
sq.,1%2

Theodosius, son of Placidia, 199
Theodosius, monophysite bishop of
Jerusalem, 358 <sg.

Theodotus Coiocynthius, ii. 22
Theodotus, Pr. Prel of East, ii. 58
Theon, mathematician, 217
TheopascMte doctriue, ii 375 sq.
Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria,
action against Chrysostom, 149-158 ;
condemns Origenism, 150 ; Apologia,
159

Theophilus, Arian bishop in Abyssinia,
ii322

TheopMlus, jurist, ii. 396, 398
Theotimus, 213

Theotokos, controversy on term, 351
sq.

Thermantia, wife of Honorius, 107,
170, 172

Thermopylae, Alaric at, 119; Huns
at, 275 ; ii. 307 ; 310
Thessalonica, “Valentinian III. pro-
claimed Caesar at, 222 ; Theodosius
II. at, 224 ; roads to, 270 ; threat-
ened by Theoderie, 416 ; mint of,
ii 357 ; Vigihus at, 385 ; Vicariate
(ecclesiastical) of,i 64, 365 ; ii. 363 sq.
Thessaly, 111, 421 ; ii. 307
Theudis, king, ii. 161, 213, 286
Theurgy, 376
Theveste, ii. 149
Thigmca, ii. 149

Thomas, Imperial secretary, ii. 45
Thomas, quaestor, ii. 368
Thoringia, 242

Thorismud (or Thorismund), 292 sq.,
Z27

Thrace (diocese), provinces and towns
enumerated, 270 sq.

Thrasamund, 5ee Trasamund
Thraustila, 299 sq.

Three Chapters, controversy of the,
ii. 384 sg'g.

Thubursicum Bure, ii. 149
Thucydides, imitated by Procopius,
ii. 429

Thule, ii. 395
Thurii, ii. 247

Thuringians, 99, 291 ; conquered by
Franks, ii. 161
Thyatira, 132

Tiber, r., ambiguity of name in Pro-
copius, n. 182 ; dredging of, 282
Tibur, ii. 235, 246

Ticinum (Pavia), military mutiny at,
171; Attila at, 295 Theoderie
besieged in, 424 ; Fraiiks massacre
Goths at, ii. 207 ; Ildibad pro-
claimed at, 213 ; Texas xxroclaimod
at, 270 ; GotMc treasure in, ib.

489

INDEX

Tigisis, ii. 149
Tigrins, 157

Timasius, magr. mil, 117 sq^

Timgad (Tiiamugadi), ii. 149
Timostratus, ii. 81

Timothy, Patriarch of Constantinople,
438 <sg'., 452

Timothy II., Aelurus, Patriarch of
Alexandria, 391, 402 sq.

Timothy III., Salophacioius, Patri-
arch of Alexandria, 402, 404
Timothy IV., Patriarch of Alexandria,
ii.319

Timothy of Gaza, 442
Timns, ii. 81

Tingitana, 190, 255 ; Justinian in-
cludes in Mauretania Caes., ii. 140
Tipasa, ii. 149

Toleration (religious), 366, 368, 371, 459
Tolosa, see Toulouse
Topirus, ii. 309
Torre Piscali, ii. 187
Tortona, 332 ; ii. 207
Torture, legal use of, ii. 414
Totila, = Baduila, ii. 229 ; coins, ib . ;
victories at Faenza and Mugelio,
230 ; successes in south Italy, 231 ;
captures Naples, 231 sqq, ; besieges
Otranto, 234 ; successes in central
Italy, 234 sq, ; blockades Rome,
235 ; his first siege of Rome, 236
sqq» ; proposes to demolish Rome,
243 ; makes overtures for j)eace,
id. ; recovers south Italy, 244 ;
attacks Rome and is repelled, 245 ;
at Perusia, 246 ; in Lucania, ib, ;
besieges Rossano, 247 ; Ms second
siege of Rome, 249 sqq. ; his fleet,
252 ; in Sicily, 255 sq. ; Ms
negotiations with Theodebert, 258 ;
makes peace proposals, 260 ; march
from Rome to Tadinum, 263 sq. ;
defeated by Narses, 264 sqq. ;
death, 268 ; his character, 268 sq. ;
his acts annulled, 282
Toulouse, 187 ; seized by Athaulf ,
196 ; granted to Wallia, 204 ;
battle at, 250 ; Avitus proclaimed
Emperor at, 326
Tournai, 187
Tours, 250, 343
Traditio, ii. 4.04
Trajan, officer, ii. 104
Trajanopolis, 271 ; ii. 309
Tralles, ii, 371
TrapezAis, ii. 344

Trasamund (Thrasamund), king, 461;
ii. 125

Travelling, rates of, ii. 225
Treason, laws on, IIS ; ii. 410
Treverorum, Augusta, see Trier
Treviso, see Tcrvisium

Tribigild, 129 sq., 132, 133
Tribonian, quaestor, ii. 41, 55, 369 ;

legal work, 396, 397 sq.

Tribuni et 7iotarii, 2$

Tribuni, military, 35, 40
Tribunus, physician, ii. 112
Tributum,4i%,I>(^

Tricamaron, battle of, ii, 136
Trier, plundered by Vandals, 186 ;
Sebastian recognised at, 195 ;
Attalus, recognised at, 199 ; in-
scription of Constantins at, 203 ;
burned by Pranks, 207 ; Praet.
Prefect leaves, ib.

TripoHtana, 37, 255, 337 ; revolts
from Vandals, ii. 128 ; under
Justinian, 140, 147, 359
Trisagio7i, 438
Tritheism, ii. 374
Trocundes, 390, 392, 395
Troilus, 132, 213
Tropaeum, 271
Troyes, 293
Trygetius, 249, 295
Tryphiodorus, ii. 431
Tryphon, Prefect of Constantinople,
ii, 41

Tubxmae, ii. 149
Tuder, ii. 195, 197

Tufa, surrenders to Theoderic, 423 ;

returns to Odovacar, 423, 424
TuUio,4.6B
Tuluin, 456 ; ii 159
Tu-men, ii 314
Tunis, ii 132
Turks, ii 314
Turpilio, 178
Tunis, ii. 297
Tutela, ii. 403
Tychonius, 304

Typhos, allegorical name of a Praet.

Prel, 128, 132-134
Tyre, attacked by Sabeiroi, 114
Tzani, 322, 434; reduction of, ii.
79,116

Tzath, ii 80, 119
Tzazo, ii 136
Tzur, ii. 6
Tzurulon, 268

Ugernum, 328
Uioignum, 270

Uldin, 104, 135 ; invades Moesia, 212,

■ 271 ..

Uifila, general of Honorius, 192 sq.
Uliaris,ii 134
Ulitheus, ii 193
Ulpian, ii 397

■Ulpiana, '■ ,269 ; roads to, 270 ; ii
304,309,327

Universities, see Atliens, Constantinople
Unogimdurs,. 435 ; ii 302 ■

490 HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

Uraias, ii. 202 sq., 207, 210 ; decliiies
Gotliic tbroiie, 213 ; death, 228
XJraniiJs, ii. 370

Urbicius, Grand Ghamberlain, 429
Urbicius, tactical treatise of, ii. 75
Urbicus, r., battle of, 328
Urbinum, ii. 195; taken by Beli-
sarins, 201 ; by Totila, 231 ; roads
to,289

Urbs Salvia, ii. 198

Urbs Vetus, ii. 195, 201 : taken by
Belisarius, 202
Ursus, 325

Utigurs, 435 ; ii. 303, 307 315

Vahan, Mainigonian, ii. 7
Valakhesh, ii. 7
Valaris, ii. 230 *

Valence, siege by Gerontins, 190 ; by
Athaulf, 195; Alans settled at,
292; taken by Euric, 342
Valens, Emperor, buildings, 80 ; see
Hadrianople, battle of
Valens, mag. mil, 178 sq. n.

Valentia, i'ee Valence
Valentine, of Selge, 130
Valentine, captain, relieves Otranto,
ii. 234,236

Valentinian III., Emperor, birth, 209 ;
nobilissimus, 210 ; at Constanti-
nople, 221 sq. ; Caesar, 222 ;
consul, ib. ; crowned Augustus at
Rome, 224 ; marriage, 225 ; char-
acter, 250 ; treatment of his sister,
289 sq. ; sends embassy to Attila in
Italy, 295; kills Aetius, 299; death,
300 ; coins, 224 ; laws of, 22, 364
Valeria (Panuonian province), 166,
226 ; restored by Huns, 240, 272
Valerian, mag. mil, ii. 77; in Ar-
menia, 103, 107 ; sent to Italy,
186 sq., 192 ; brings troops to
Italy, 246 ; in Picenum, 248 ; at
battle of Sena Gallica, 259 ; joins
army of Karses, 263, 264 ; at
Verona, 270 ; on the Po, 276 ; at
Faventia, 277 ; at battle of Capua,
' 279 ;-"' '

Valeriana, daughter of Nomus, ii. 80
Valiia, mag. utr. mil, 253
Valona, see Aulon
Vandali lustmiafii, ii. 139
Vandals, 96, 99 ; in Gaul, 186 sqq. ; \
in Spain, 192, 206 ; invasion of :
Africa, 244 sqq. ; first treaty with
the Empire, 249 ; settlement in
Africa, 254 ; second treaty with
Empire, 255 ; navy, 254, 257;
Salvian on, 307 ; era of, 257 ;
conquered by Belisarius, II. Chap.
XVII. § 1 ; fate of, 139 ; ^ee Asding
Vandals, Siling Vandals, Gaiseric

Varahran IV., ii. 1
Varahran V., ii. 4
Vami, 462
Vasatae,198
Vectigalia, 51
Vegetius, 225
Veleia (in Spain), 191
Venantius (Decius), consul in A. D. 484,
409

Veneti, ii. 295

Venice, foundation of, ii. 285
Verina, Empress, 335 ; conspires
against Zeno, in favour of Patricius,
390 sq. ; surrendered to Ulus, 394 ;
reconciled with ILlus, 397 ; crowns
Leontius, ; death, 398, 416
Verona, Alaric defeated at, 162 ;
Attila at, 295 ; Theoderic’s victory
at, 423 ; his baths at, 468 ; Ildibad
at, h. 213, 228 ; Imperialists fail
to take, 230 ; Goths hold, against
Valerian, 270 ; recovered by Xarses,
281

Vexillationes, 35

Via Appia, ii. 186, 187, 225. 279
Via Aurelia, 185
Via Claudia Augusta, 167
Via Egnatia, 112, 270 ; ii. 225
Via Flaminia, 175, 196 ; ii. 195, 225,
288 sqq., 372
Via Latina, ii. 180, 187
Via Salaria, 175; ii. 181
Vicarii, 27 ; of Italy and Urbs Roma,
ii 283 ; of the Long Walls, 339;
Justinian abolishes vicariates, 339 sq.
Vicedomimis, 409
Vicentia, 295
Victor of Vita, ii. 125
Victorius, governor of Auvergne, 344
Victorius of Aquitaine, Paschal cycle,
466

Victory, altar of, at Rome, 369
Victricius, bishop, 371
Vicus Helenae, 243

Vieima (Vienne), Gonstans, tyrant,
killed at, 192 ; ecclesiastical posi-
tion of, 363

Vigiiantia, sister of Justinian, ii. 19
Vigilantius, “ protestant ” movement
of, 388

Vigilius, Pope, ii 236 ; death, 283 ;
apocrisiarius at Constantinople, 378;
bishop of Rome, 379 ; dealings
with Silverius, 379 sq. ; sum-
moned to Constantinople, 384 ;
arrives, 385 ; his Judicatum, 386 ;
persecuted, 387 sq. ; excommuni-
cates Menas, 388 ; his EnojmiiGal,
ib. ; h.m ConstUutum, 389;" does
not take part in the Fifth Council,
389 sq. ; accepts its decrees, 390;
death, ib.

491

INDEX

Viminacium, 268, 274, 283
Vindelicia, 244
Vindices, 442 ; ii. 351
Yindobona (Vienna), 166
Viiiithar, ii. 295
Viranum, 167

Visigoths, 97 ; numbers of, 105 ; help
Theoderic against Gdovacar, 424;
relations with Theoderic, 461 ; con-
cpiered by Franks, 462 ; under
Theudis, and Athanagild, ii. 282.
[For their conquests, see under
Alaric, Athaulf, Wallia, Theoderic
I. and II., Euric.]

:Vita Caesarii, 463

Vitalian, Count of Federates, revolt
of, 447 sqq. ; a commander in
Persian War, ii. 12 ; mag. mil. and
consul, 20 ; death, 21 ; assists in
restoration of orthodoxy, 372
Vitalius, ii. 227 sq., 234
Vitianus, ii. 4
Vitus, mag. utr. mil., 252
Viviers, 342
Volaterrae, ii. 275
Volusian, 226
Vouiiie, battle of, 462
Vramshapu, ii. 7
Vultetra&, ii. 275
Vulturnus, r., ii. 278

Waoho (Waces in Procopius), Lom-
bard king, ii. 205, 275, 301, 302
Wacis, Ostrogoth, ii. 183
Wages, rise of, ii. 356; Justinian
restricts, ib.

Walachia, ii. 303
Walamir, 276, 291, 314, 411
Wall, Long, of Anastasius, 233
Wallia, elected king, 200 ; African
project, 202 ; compact with Honor-
ius, 203 ; wars in Spain, 203 sq. ;
establishes Visigothic kingdom in
Gaul, 204 sq. ; death, 405
Wa.ztirg-framadlmrs, ii. 9 sq.

Weddings, 141, 197 ; a German

wedding described, 344
Widemir, 291, 404, 411
Widin, Goth, ii. 281
Widin, town, see Ratiaria
Wilgang, ii. 115 sq.

Witigis, king, his embassy to Chosroes,
ii. 92 ; elate of accession, 177;
kills Theodahad, 178; marries
Matasuntha, 179 ; sends embassy

to Justmian, ^*6. ; besieges Rome,
182 sqq.; besieges Ariminum, 197
sq. ; sends embassy to Persia, 205
sq. ; capture of, 213 ; end of, 216 ;
coins, 179

Worms, 187 ; Burgundian kingdom
of, 200

Xenaias, bishop, 440 ; ii. 381
Xerxes, ii. 81

Yezdegerd I., 212, 214 ; reign of, ii.
• I sqq.

Yezdegerd II., ii. 5 sqq.

Zabdicene, 93

Zabergan, Persian envoy, ii. 31, 93
Zabergan, leader of Kotrigurs, ii.
304

Zabi Justiniana, ii. 149
Zacharias of Mytilene, 443 ; ii. 11,
429

Zela, ii. 344

Zeno, Emperor, original name, 318;
marries Ariadne, ib. ; 7nag. mil in
praes., ib . ; mag. mil, per Or., 319 ;
reign, 389 sqq. ; unpopularity, 389,
400 ; his son, 401 ; death, 402 ;
church policy, 402 sqq. ; Italian
policy, 407, 410 ; dealings with the
Ostrogoths, 411 sqq. ; sends Theo-
deric to Italy, 422 ; treaty with
Gaiseric, 390 ; his property con-
fiscated, 243 ; dealings with Perozes,
ii. 10

Zeno, son of Emperor Zeno, 389, 401
Zeno, mag. mil. in a.d. 499, 235
Zenobia (town), h. 93
Zenonis, Empress, 391, 392 ; coins,
393

Zerkon, 288

Zeugitana, 255, 257 ; ii. 140
Zeugma, 96
Zhu-zhu, 101 ; ii. 314
Zichs, ii. 313
Zingion, ii. 320

Zoilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, ii.
386 sg.

Zooras, ii. 363

Zoroastrianism, 91, 377 ; ii, 3 .sg.
Zoroastrians in Cappadocia, ii. 4
Zosimus, historian, sources of, 108,
160 ; anti-Christian, 301 ; ii. 417
Zosimus, Pope, 361 sqq.

Zotieus, Pr. Pref . , 445, 470

INDEX

II.

a,yapdicr7](ns, ii. 69
depLKOP, ii. 350
dXorjs, ii. 321
dp ay 6 psvdLs, 5
dvaanadpr, rd.. ocrr^a, ii. 74
dpTLypacpTjs, 29
aTTOKardaTacnSy ii. 383
dpL&pLos (militaTj), 168 ; ii. 76

da7)p.ov {darjpa), 282

avphfcXalSos, 431
adroKparLop, 7, 16

^ao'i'Keh, 15, 92 ; 6 aiKpos], 7, 323

paaiXlaKOs, ii. 330

^dvdov, 38

l3op5J)pps, ii. 73

f^ovyXu', ii. 69

[:io6Ko\opf 316

oecTTruT');?, 16

deXrLoros, ii. 279
oevrepcccriSj ii. 366
d’tiaevcnp.a, 337
drjaoTrjs, drjfioredoj, 85
diaypafp'p,

Ot^prrjcnp, 431
opovyyoSf 38

”KXXpp, 283, 287.
ep.fSoXoL, 76
tfX(pvr€V(ns^ 57
ipaTTuypaCjhoL, iS
h^doi;OL, tpdoi-OTaroL^ 34
eirapxos, 2S. 47

’'Jjyov/.ieuoiy 384

Kai-LTrdyLa, 431
KapvocpvXXa, ii. 321
Kaarpiiatavoi^ ii. 359
/cardXoyot (iiiilitary), ii. 76
KavKLov, ii. 337

Geeek

KXa^top, ii. 821
KOiSevTov, 24, 430

XayttTTporaroi, 34
Xaupedra, 335
Xt^eXXipa-Los, 315
Xdrat, TTpoXurai, ii. 398

jidyLcTTpos, 29
pLavidKiv, 315

fxedoSf 281

fiiprf (factions), 85
/uepos (militaiy), ii. 76
pLoipa (militarj), ii. 76

vvKT€Trapxos, ii. 29, 337

6ya60oaXa, 444 sq. ; ii. 350
ofioKTjvcrai 444 sq. ; ii. 350
ovcia^ 352

TrairvXewp, ii. .105
ireplpXeTrroi, 34
wXwrat, ii. 294
7roXLT€v6pL€POl, 444
TToXm/cd, ii. 351
7rp€7r€vdotjXia, ii. 159
TTpocrraaia, 57

po^a, 46

crepdrop^ 22
(Tirrjcreis, 42, 375
(TL^CHpes, 322
cro0cr0ec, ii. 320

Srfi'd, rd (Bosphoros), ii. 355
<rrpaT??74s, 320, 392
(TwilOeLaL^ ii, 335
crvPO)P')]j ii. 349
(TTixdpLPy 431
(Txi-o.o’raiy ii. 321

494

HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE

rd^is, ra^eajrat, 31
Tf4?'^<rra = ChiHa, ii. 321
T^ayyapeiou, ii. 72
T^aifddm, ii. 321
Tov /3t7A:as, 315
TOV^LOy, 431

THE END

virocrrao-LSf 3o2

%putroT^Xeia rQv io{iyb)v, 444

^eLdofiepos, ii. 433
(poLdepdroL, AZ ; ii. 77, 429
(poWepd, 447

Prhtied in G7-cat Britam hy 'Kd^ Clark, Limited, Edinbm-gh^

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "History Of The Later Roman Empire Vol.ii"

See other formats